Interesting article in today's NYTimes:
This is nothing but fantasizing on the part of the NYTimes. First of all, even if the Democrats were somehow able to win both the House and Senate it would only be with a slight majority, which would make any sort of vote for impeachment look mighty weak and mighty liberal. Secondly, I just dont believe that the Foley scandal will have that much of an impact on voters because we're not talking about a Presidential election here and it's the Left that's trying to push Foley down the throats of voters more concerned about what's going on with more important matters such as Iraq, illegal immigration and gas prices than a pervert from Florida who's already resigned. Lastly, the idea that a Democratic majority would cut down on spending is just ludicrous when you consider that the only cuts in spending during the Clinton administration was on farm subsidies, defense and welfare.
IN the final weeks of this bruising campaign, the debate, in many ways, comes down to this: What would happen if the Democrats win?
RepublicansA Democratic majority in the Senate could also stymie, or at least slow, the conservative reconstruction of the Supreme Court, assuming another vacancy occurs in the next two years, and force President Bush to seek more bipartisanship on all judicial nominees.
warn, ever more urgently, that a Democratic takeover of Congress would mean wrenching ideological change: higher taxes; big new spending; maybe even impeachment. Democrats insist they have no intention of an abrupt lurch to the left, offering instead a relatively modest agenda and the less-than-revolutionary rallying cry of “more oversight!”
In fact, a Democratic majority in the House or the Senate — or both — would immediately change Washington in fundamental ways after four years of one-party Republican rule. That majority seemed less theoretical last week as Republican woes, most recently the scandal over Mark Foley and Congressional pages, added up. Even so, it would operate under some formidable constraints, political and institutional.A Democratic Congress would have sweeping new powers to set the agenda and focus the political debate — through the hearings it calls, the witnesses it summons and the kind of legislation it brings to the floor. “More oversight” could be more revolutionary than it sounds, with the rise of lawmakers like Representative Henry A. Waxman, the hard-charging California Democrat who would take over the House Government Reform Committee; in an interview, he promised a review into “waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayers’ money” related to Iraq, Hurricane Katrina and homeland security.
Once again, the Times just doesn't get it.