This one's for you, Petey!

"Reality Check" by Doug Whamond

Hmmm ...

Here's something puzzling to me. President W has had quite a bit of electoral support since the attack on the WTC. In 2002, an off-year election, he gained seats in both houses of Congress, an almost-unheard-of thing. Then again in 2004 he was re-elected and gained seats in the Congress. Now, two years later, he's completely repudiated. Things in Iraq are not going great, but they're not a disaster either. The economy is going great. W has not changed his approach to government in a drastic way, either, except for the prescription drug debacle (which was and is pure idiocy.) So why this turnaround?

Now, just a week after a watershed election, a poll comes out showing that almost 80% of respondents are worried Democrats are going to pull out of Iraq too fast. 80%! That's huge! The same poll shows 70% are afraid Democrats are not going to allow Bush to do what he needs to to fight terrorism. 70%! That's huge too! Those numbers are overwhelming majorities! Are these the people who voted Democrats into Congress? Again I ask, where did this turnaround come from?

I have to wonder ...

Not-so-instant analysis

Here's a few more thoughts about the election just past.

1. Bill Frist can forget about being president. Conservative voters just repudiated his Senate in a big way. He can save himself a lot of time and trouble now by forgetting any plans he had about running for president.

2. The last time Democrats were in charge of Congress they engineered the two biggest tax increases in history, over the course of three years. What's coming will not only take money from your family, but it will cripple the economy. Brace yourself.

3. However, the Bush tax cuts are set to expire in 2010. If Congress doesn't extend them, the tax rates go back to 2000 levels, ipso facto, a tax increase. I wouldn't be surprised if the Democrats do nothing tax-wise until after the 2008 presidential elections. Raising taxes in the next two years would just give Republicans a good campaign issue, and Democrats would probably rather consolidate their power by winning the presidency before doing their thing.

4. Democrats won, so good on 'em. But they didn't run on a single idea, and now they may try to govern without a single idea. All politics is the same, but it really does seem it's more about power than policy with Democrats.

Instant analysis

Here's a couple of things to look for over the next two years:

Nationally, the Democrats ran on nothing proactive. Locally, many of the new House members ran as conservatives. The national leadership of the Democrat party is way-far-left-liberal. So, as their agenda takes its liberal shape, will these new conservative Democrat members fall in line behind their leadership, or will they vote their values? This could make the "Blue-Dog" Democrats a key group for both parties to court.

The other thing is Senate Republicans. Assuming that they will be the minority, will they conduct themselves as followers, or will they adopt the Democrat strategy of obstruction? After all, they'll be only a one-seat minority. If every piece of legislation that comes up is under threat of filibuster, nothing will pass. One thing's for sure, though, no Bush judges will be approved.

Christians and politics

" 'Vanity of vanity,' says the Preacher. 'Vanity of vanities, all is vanity' " In others words, the world stinks, and we're not going to change it. So should Christians swear off politics - after all, in the U.S. government is trusted to the people - and just let the world go its way? After all, all is vanity. We're never going to make the world look like the Church, nor should we want to. Really, the Church should want to stick out like a sore thumb. But is it Christ's will that we let society go its way into utter judgment? I say no; if we do, surely it will suck us along with it. If we have to be surrounded by vanity, I think we should try to at least make it good vanity.