Conference back40::soapbox

Prediction:  Republicans will lose control of the House.

    Wow- that's out on a limb.

    
    prediction: Republicans will gain even more seats. Thus frustrating
    the incumbent Clinton for 4 more years.

    >Wow- that's out on a limb.
     
    Or in the words of the imortal Hagg, out on a lamb.:)
    
    Need a crap screen to follow!:)
    

    I don't think its all that farfetched to expect the GOP to lose the
    House majority.  I'm not saying I expect it, but this House has not
    worked well together.  The old boys didn't like the rabble rousers.
    Newt's leadership has been uninspiring (you gotta give him the
    Contract, but hey, there's been a year of dead air since.)  And several
    of the frosh class have become liabilities- the Utah campaign finance
    irregularities being only the most damning.  She isn't running again,
    and she isn't the only one quitting.
    
    Its a far cry from the promises we heard about how the GOP would clean
    up the town "if only you give us a majority, if only you give us a
    chance."  You had your majorities, Newt, Bob- and its a poor showing
    you've made with them.  51% isn't enough to override vetoes, so you
    should've gone to Clinton with olive branches, not flame throwers,
    especially after the way you treated the start of his presidency- he
    had no reason to compromise with you, and you didn't see how vulnerable
    that left you.
    
    DougO

    >I don't think its all that farfetched to expect the GOP to lose the
    >House majority.  
    
     I think that if they do retain a numerical majority, it will be by the
    slimmest of margins. After all of the scaremongering by the media about
    "cuts" in medi*, senior citizens are likely to vote the "safe" choice,
    even if it hoses their progeny. Not to mention the fact that the
    difference between the congressional "cuts" and those proposed by the
    President (that somehow rarely managed to get characterized as "cuts")
    were not so great.

RE: 732.2 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "exterminator"

It's something I've been saying for a while,  and sure,  right now,  it
looks like a safe bet.  Don't you remember all the talk about "We going to
steamroll the Democrats in the Senate,  and Clinton will not dare to veto
anything"?  They didn't think that they were a majority party,  they were
talking and acting like this was a one party state!

When you have a slim majority,  you need to talk quietly,  pick your
battles carefully,  and if you're beaten on an issue,  smile and move on.
Quiet and careful work.

What the Republicans did was talk loud,  fight the wrong battles (like
cutting PBS funding),  didn't fight the right battles (like rationalizing
Social Security),  and when beaten,  whined and whined and shut down the
Government.

So what should they do now?  Damage control first:  Distance themselves
from the Tobacco Lobby,  the antienvironment groups,  the Christian
Coalition,  in short the whole range of the Radical Right.  Talk quietly
but publicly about mistakes.  Draw up a list of priorities,  with focus on
the political center.  


Phil

    We are likely to see control of the House see-saw back and forth for
    the next several elections. If the Democrats retake the House this year
    it will likely be by a slim margin. They will then almost certainly
    give it back to the Republicans in 1998 because the party of the
    incumbent President always loses seats in mid-term elections.

    The republicans will not lose control of Congress!
    
                                Steve J.

    >fight the wrong battles (like cutting PBS funding),  didn't fight the right 
    >battles (like rationalizing Social Security),  
    
     I hate to be the one to clue you in but fighting "the right battles"
    is going to cost at least as many seats as fighting "the wrong
    battles" and probably a good deal more. Social Security is a sacred
    cow. The democrats won't even look at the field it's in, much less talk
    about restricting its diet. So you can gloat all you want about
    republican missteps, and watch the democrats piss away opportunity
    after opportunity after opportunity to make a difference in the
    deficit, but at least while the whole ship goes down you can rest
    assured that your babies (like PBS) will get the best liferafts, even
    though they can swim just fine on their own.
    
>and when beaten,  whined and whined and shut down the Government.
                                         
    I didn't realize that republicans vetoed any budget bills. Must be a
    paradigm shift in the democratic process that I missed...
    
     That you hold the President utterly blameless for the government
    shutdown is nothing if not consistent. You've given him a free pass
    right along. That internal memoes were leaked that stated it was his
    intention not to do business with congress and precipitate a mammoth
    budget battle for political purposes, even to go so far as lie about
    the potential for a default (while secretly taking steps to prevent it
    from happening) no doubt sits fine with you. Personally, I think your
    objectivity went out the window as a result of an unsatisfactory
    Merrimack school board, and you have repeatedly and consistently
    employed double standards when measuring the actions of democrats and
    republicans. One can only hope that the recent election of a moderate
    to the Merrimack school board will allow you to achieve at least some
    level of objectivity. Not that I expect you to actually _criticize_ a
    democrat engaging in election year politicking, now that would be
    totally over the top. 
    

RE: 732.10 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "exterminator"

>> fight the wrong battles (like cutting PBS funding),  didn't fight the
>> right battles (like rationalizing Social Security),  
    
> I hate to be the one to clue you in but fighting "the right battles"
> is going to cost at least as many seats as fighting "the wrong
> battles" and probably a good deal more. 

Maybe,  and maybe not.  Social Security is a minefield,  tis true.  No
argument.  And the Democratics have not been in a hurry to even look in, 
much less take a step,  a problem that will haunt them next year assuming
they win.  But again,  I'm talking about Republican mistakes now.  Mind if
we keep the attention on the Majority Party while they are in control of
Congress?  The problem with going after tiny programs supported by a
majority of the voters is that you don't gain much (the effect on the
bottom line is invisible) and you lose a lot of political capital.  In
other words,  all down side,  no gain.

The reason why Social Security would be a better battle is that there is an
up side to the battle.  If a rational plan can be proposed,  discussed and
passed the Republicans would have a big positive achievement to point to
for years.  Lose seats?  Yes,  maybe.  But they might even gain seats.  And
even in the next election,  if you are that short sighted.  All it would
have taken would be an honest approach,  good communications and a
willingness to work with the opposition.  The Republicans score oh for three 
in those.


> That you hold the President utterly blameless for the government shutdown 
> is nothing if not consistent. 

Blameless?  What did you expect him to do?  Roll over and play dead?  Oh, 
that's what you expected.  


> Personally, I think your objectivity went out the window as a result of
> an unsatisfactory Merrimack school board, 

Perhaps you remember that I supported Mr Clinton over Mr Bush four years
ago.  That's before the problems with the Merrimack School Board,  so
perhaps that's not the whole story.  I will agree that the majority in
Congress made many of the same mistakes as the majority on the Merrimack
School Board.


Phil

>Blameless?  
    
    Yes, blameless. You excuse his contribution to the shutdown as having
    been "necessary" to avoid "rolling over and playing dead." In point of
    fact, he was unwilling to bargain honestly, he lied about the nature of
    the impasse to the american people, he was completely unwilling to
    negotiate a partial settlement even on the items where he and the
    congress differed only slightly. He played election year politics, at a
    big cost to the country, and that's ok with you because the congress is
    "the bad guys" in your eyes. Well guess where that leaves us? I think
    the president is the bad guy. And thus it is hardly surprising that we
    have no progress.
    
     And don't think I've forgotten that you insisted on the congress
    making "real" aka deeper cuts when you knew that the president opposed
    the cuts at the shallower level that they proposed. Nothing more than a
    "heads I win, tails you lose" game. You didn't want progress. You just
    wanted the return of power to the democrats, where they can funnel the
    money to fiddlers while Rome burns. But at least the fiddlers are your
    buddies, so it's ok.
    
    >What did you expect him to do?  
    
     Not lie. Negotiate in good faith. Keep the best interests of the
    country as an even minor consideration when acting in his office.
    Apparently this is considered to be "rolling over" as far as you're
    concerned.
    
    It's ok. He's going to tell the people exactly what they want to hear,
    and he's going to be reelected. We'll get to watch the wooden Algore
    "get down" during the next inaugural ball, and then Clinton will do
    exactly what he's done his entire political life- renege on his
    promises. And in the mid terms, we'll see a repeat of 94.
    

RE: 732.12 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "exterminator"

> In point of fact, he was unwilling to bargain honestly, 

So was Congress.


> he lied about the nature of the impasse to the american people, 

So did Congress.


> he was completely unwilling to negotiate a partial settlement 

Congress started with the position as being was unwilling to negotiate
anything other than an unconditional surrender.


> And don't think I've forgotten that you insisted on the congress making
> "real" aka deeper cuts 

I'm opposed to smoke and mirrors budgets.  Yes,  the President issued some
of these as well,  but this topic is for discussing the Republican Congress
and their shortcomings,  remember?  What do you thing they did wrong, 
beyond poor communication skills?


> Negotiate in good faith.  Keep the best interests of the country as an 
> even minor consideration when acting in his office.

Would have been great advice for Congress,  yes?  Too bad they didn't follow
it.


> And in the mid terms, we'll see a repeat of 94.

Maybe.  Depends on two things happening.  The Democrats in Congress making a
mess of the next term AND the Republicans in Congress showing that they
might have learned something from their mistakes.  

   
Phil

>So was Congress.
    
    Untrue. Many times they literally begged the president to negotiate
    with them honestly, that they were ready to find common ground. The
    president snubbed them. Not interested.
    
>So did Congress.
    
    Really? In what way? I don't recall the congress sending a Leon
    UnsmokedItalianBacon in front of the cameras to state gravely that the
    US was in danger of defaulting, and "senior citizens, be afraid. Be
    very afraid."
    
>Congress started with the position as being was unwilling to negotiate
>anything other than an unconditional surrender.
    
    True- and it was perhaps their biggest mistake. Nonetheless, they
    overcame it and tried, at least. Unlike the president.
    
>I'm opposed to smoke and mirrors budgets.  Yes,  the President issued some
>of these as well,  but 
    
    but you are in the business of minimizing the president's shenanigans
    while making the congress' to be the end of the world. It's called
    polarization, Phil, and while it may give you a woody, it doesn't
    accomplish ANYTHING positive.
    
>this topic is for discussing the Republican Congress
>and their shortcomings,  remember?  
    
     A perfect example of the PhilSpin (TM). That's not the title, but
    that's surely Phil's axe to grind. Let's look at Phil's list of
    shortcomings of the republican congress. Start at the top. They aren't
    democrats. Well, there you have it, folks. They couldn't ever be good,
    they aren't democrats. Wheeeeee! It's fun being Phil.
    
    >What do you thing they did wrong, beyond poor communication skills?
    
     Coming out with a no negotiation stance was not helpful, as it made
    them seem smug. This is not the right perception to be giving people.
    It also made Clinton out to be a sympathetic figure. They could have
    been more focused on other parts of the budget, other than giving
    suckers of the PBS teat something to rail about. They should have had
    ALL of the budget bills passed on time. They should never have allowed
    Clinton to use the presidency as a bully pulpit to frame the bugdet
    battle. He was lying and they weren't effective in countering the lies.
    That the media aided and abetted the lies by using inaccurate and
    inflammatory terms certainly hurt the congress, but they should have
    been way more vocal in objecting. The fact that most people agreed with
    the actual terms of the "cuts" according to polls, but disagreed with
    "making cuts" was a huge indictment of the media, but the republicans
    let them get away with it.
    
    The republicans also failed to come up with a solid presidential
    candidate. Not that I think Dole would have made a bad president. He's
    just not an effective national campaigner, and unfortunately, that's
    more important than doing the job well.
    
>Would have been great advice for Congress,  yes?  Too bad they didn't follow
>it.
    
     Yeah, sure, whatever you say, Phil. Keep ignoring the president's
    shortcomings, and blame everything on the republicans. Blame
    republicans when they are the majority. Blame republicans when a
    democrat sits in the whitehouse and democrats control both houses. The
    blame game never changes, huh, Phil?
    
    

RE: 732.14 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "exterminator"

>> So was Congress.
    
> Untrue. Many times they literally begged the president to negotiate with
> them honestly, that they were ready to find common ground. The president
> snubbed them. Not interested.
    
Negotiate an honest unconditional surrender,  sure.  And after Newt started
to notice that his strategies were flopping,  sure,  he tried to settle for
a little less.  But not a lot less.  Even you agree that this was a
mistake.  And all the silly outrageous attempts to tack something wild on
continuing resolutions and debt ceiling increases.  These made Clinton look
very Presidential,  often not an easy task.


>> this topic is for discussing the Republican Congress
>> and their shortcomings,  remember?  
    
> Let's look at Phil's list of shortcomings of the republican congress.
> Start at the top. They aren't democrats. 

Not even on the list,  and you should be smart enough to know it.  You
might notice that we are not all that far apart on most issues,  and wonder
if personal attacks might not help us discuss our common ground.  Or are
you interested only in argument?


>> What do you thing they did wrong, beyond poor communication skills?

> Coming out with a no negotiation stance was not helpful, as it made
> them seem smug. 

And a few other things as well.  Agreed,  high on my list as well.


> They could have been more focused on other parts of the budget,  other 
> than giving suckers of the PBS teat something to rail about. 

Agreed,  my point as well.  The only parts worth a lot of bother are
Medicxxx,  Social Security,  some assorted subsidies and Defense.  Not that
this is the only way to approach the budget,  but it would have made sense
to give most of line items (less than 20% of the total) a 2% increase and
deal with the entitlements first,  and the rest later.


> They should have had ALL of the budget bills passed on time. 

Rather than months after the first shutdown.


> They should never have allowed Clinton to use the presidency as a bully 
> pulpit to frame the bugdet battle. 

You can't stop him from talking,  but they could have started with an honest
frame themselves.  Maybe that would have made the media more sympathetic.


> He was lying and they weren't effective in countering the lies.

They were lying as well.  It's hard to complain effectively about something
you are doing as well.


> That the media aided and abetted the lies by using inaccurate and
> inflammatory terms certainly hurt the congress, 

We are talking about what Congress did wrong,  not what the media did
wrong,  remember?


> The republicans also failed to come up with a solid presidential 
> candidate. 

I rather like Dole,  not that I agree with him on all issues,  but I
respect him.  I don't think he has much chance of getting elected,  both
for some of his failings as well as for some of Newt's.  I'm leaning to
voting for him,  however,  Congress is a different story.


> Keep ignoring the president's shortcomings, and blame everything on the 
> republicans.  Blame republicans when they are the majority.  Blame
> republicans when a democrat sits in the whitehouse and democrats control
> both houses. The blame game never changes, huh, Phil?

Speak for yourself.  I try to put the blame where needed.


Phil

    
    doc, your turn

    mark,
    
    EXCUSE ME?
    
    This is the same republican congress that said the president was
    "irrelevant", much to the joy of many boxers, a little over a year ago? 
    some how I have a disconnect between bargaining in good faith by people
    who felt the president was a non-problem.  
    
    I am in favor of real cuts, particularly in the cuts of fraud in
    medicare, (there is one hell of a lot, according to both liberal and
    conservative think tanks.)  Why not do a real audit of those that SPC
    programs have already made suspect, and expand the audits if it proves
    to be profitable?  Oh, I forgot, GHWB's son is involved in one of the
    FL HMO's that was identified as having perpetrated several 10's of
    millions of dollars (read your and my future) in medicare fraud.  
    
    The repub's have touted welfare reform, while refusing to cut Mc D's
    and Pepsico off the dole (no pun intended), and allowed and crowed
    about the fact that they let industry insiders write some of the more
    egregious bills on the environment, mining subsidies, oil drilling
    permits, timber cutting........
    
    sory, I would rather support a couple of more mom's with babies, than
    the faceless and heartless corporations.
    
    meg

    >sory, I would rather support a couple of more mom's with babies, than
    >the faceless and heartless corporations.
    
     I'm sure you would rather that our tax dollars go (after much of them
    have been removed for "administration") to pay mom's to plunk out kids
    rather than allow the economy (read: "faceless and heartless
    corporations") to employ them doing something productive. That being on
    the dole vs gainfully employed plays havoc with one's self-esteem is
    not lost on me. I wonder about you, though...

    mark,
    
    We still have tax breaks for companies to relocate overseas where labor
    is cheaper, and thus leaving more people without the means to support
    themselves, or haven't you been waching what has been going on in
    manufacturing (formerly the best ticket to a living wage for people
    with few skills and little education.)  The same corporations that are
    paying CEO's ridiculous amounts of money to cut more living wage jobs
    out of the economy, are also getting your money and mine to continue to
    make more money.  How much money do softdrink and fast food companies
    need to continue to get name recognition worldwide?  One might also
    wonder how much money RJR/NAB and PM are getting to hawk their wares to
    less suspecting companies, also with your and my tax dollars.  
    
    Two groups from two different political spectrums have come up with a
    list of unnecessary, wasteful programs, and other expenses that could
    easily put a much bigger dent in the deficit than putting every social
    worker and unemployed single parent out on the streets.  The problem is
    that these programs have people who have serious money (read ability to
    buy congress and the administration) to use to keep their perks going.  
    
    BTW what is the difference in overhead between medicare and most HMO's? 
    The answer could surprise you.
    
    meg

    
    >BTW what is the difference in overhead between medicare and most HMO's? 
    >The answer could surprise you.
    
    Wouldn't total overhead equal the overhead of medicare plus the
    overhead of the health care provider? Since the medicare overhead
    is the same for everyone shouldn't we be comparing the overhead
    of health care providers?
    
    BTW what is the difference in overhead between an HMO and non-HMO
    provider? The answer could surprise you.
    
    BTW what is the difference in fraud and abuse between an HMO and
    Medicare? The answer could surprise you.
    
    Doug.

    >We still have tax breaks for companies to relocate overseas where labor
    >is cheaper, and thus leaving more people without the means to support
    >themselves, 
    
     I have called for this to be stopped, if you've noticed. Indeed, I
    have called for adverse tax consequences for companies that outsource
    jobs.
    
    > The same corporations that are
    >paying CEO's ridiculous amounts of money to cut more living wage jobs
    >out of the economy, are also getting your money and mine to continue to
    >make more money.  
    
     As far as I'm concerned, companies that lavishly compensate top
    executives ought to be ineligible for such breaks, unless they are
    compensating employees right on down the line.
    
    >Two groups from two different political spectrums have come up with a
    >list of unnecessary, wasteful programs, and other expenses that could
    >easily put a much bigger dent in the deficit than putting every social
    >worker and unemployed single parent out on the streets.  
    
     You're exaggerating. And in the future, make sure you thump your
    keyboard at appropriate moments to hilight the rhetoric. :-)
     

RE: 732.20 by BRITE::FYFE "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do witho

> BTW what is the difference in fraud and abuse between an HMO and
> Medicare? 

Huge.  New Hampshire State government is partly funded by Mediscam money.


Phil

    I predict the freemen will rally millions of sympothizers who will join
    together and destroy our capitol, thus freeing us from our oppresive
    selves. 
    -ss

    
    
    	cool. I can't wait for the movie. :*)
    

    If it happens, we'll be too busy dying by the millions in a big
    war.
    

    But WHAT a title.
    
    Come see "Land of the Free Handout, Home of the Slave".
    
    (* SONY Digital Stereo)
    

    .21> Indeed, I have called for adverse tax consequences for 
       > companies that outsource jobs.
    
    Why?
    
    DougO

    
      In the rush to the September recess, bills of all sorts are
     popping out of the House, and all sorts of tricky amendments
     are being snuck or out in conference, in committee, etc.  The
     deals are going down while the citizens are watching the Olympics.
     Incumbents are buying and selling their votes, trying to placate
     their constituencies for the upcoming elections.  In the next few
     weeks, the Prex will sign or veto lots of stuff.  You can bet he'll
     get pollster input on every one, complete with an electoral vote
     analysis.  Clinton may not be a very good President, but he's a
     VERY good presidential candidate.
    
      bb

| <<< Note 732.28 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>

| Clinton may not be a very good President, 

	Anyone notice BB used the word, MAY???? That leaves a glimmer of hope
that Clinto IS a good president! I knew he would change! I credit Dole for
that!

>Incumbents are buying and selling their votes

They don't need no steenkin Olympics. They do this all the time.

My prediction is that Clinton will sign most of the bills that the Pubs
are pushing. It'll give less political amunition and prolly force 'em to
play the impotent character card.

TTom

  The 105th is really spooky, so far.  What a contrast with the start
 of the 104th, with it's tumultuous openings and 100 days of doings !!

  It's like you wonder if the government moved out of DC...

  bb

They're coming ..... just a few more weeks and things will be back to normal ....