Well, the Republicans have launched their long-planned attack on the Representatives who will be Committee Chairs when we take back Congress. It will get nastier than this--the WSJ hides, at least, the degree to which this fear campaign depends on race-baiting and gay-baiting. But let's look at some of the things they fear:
Energy and Commerce would return to the untender mercies of John Dingell, the longest-serving Member first elected in 1955, who was a selective scourge of business when he ran the committee before 1994. The Michigan Congressman would do his best to provide taxpayer help to GM and Ford. But telecom companies would probably get more regulation in the form of Net neutrality rules, and a windfall profits tax on oil would be a real possibility.
Hmm. Provide help to GM and Ford? Even Republican candidate for governor in MI, Dick "Amway" DeVos, is trying to force Bush to help out the automobile companies. Not a bad idea, you know, to try to preserve hundreds of thousands of middle class jobs.
But look what they don't mention about John Dingell's legacy. Dingell is known for several things--the Clean Air Act, the Children's Health Insurance Program, the Medicare Program that works (unlike the donut hole monstrosity invented by Bush's donors)--all programs with solid support around the country.
And they've thrown in Net Neutrality, pretending that Dingell's support for Net Neutrality, which simply preserves the state of Free Speech on the Internet, is something to be feared. Why is the WSJ, a media outlet, campaigning against Free Speech. (Hint--the dead tree media aren't doing so well with real competition. I guess the WSJ's support for competition only extends to other publicly traded companies?) So just with John Dingell, the WSJ wants you to be afraid of Clean Air, adequate medical care for children and seniors, and Free Speech. Whew, I'm quivering from fear.
And look what else they want you to fear.
If you think Republicans have been spendthrift, don't expect much change from Wisconsin's David Obey (class of 1969) at Appropriations. Mr. Obey was one of those Democrats who ripped Mr. Clinton for endorsing a balanced budget in 1995. Rather than cut spending, his goal would be to spend less on defense and more on domestic programs and entitlements.
[snip]
Remember organized labor? Their champion would be George Miller (1974), who as the man in line to run the education and labor committee is the chief sponsor of the "Employee Free Choice Act," which would make it much easier for unions to organize by largely banning secret elections. Instead, union operatives would be allowed to publicly hound workers into signing "cards" that are counted as votes toward unionization. The Californian also wants to raise the minimum wage and fulfill the National Education Association wish to spend more federal dollars on local school construction.
George Miller wants to raise the minimum wage. So does David Obey. Wow, now that's scary. Can you imagine two radicals, who want people who work full time to make at least $14,500 a year, serving as Committee Chairs?? What a terrible thing for America, if those who cook our food and clean our offices and care for our children make the still paltry $14,500 a year!!!
And George Miller goes further. George Miller has this crazy idea that, if a majority of workers vote to form a union, their employer should recognize that union. Like Freedom of Speech, I guess the WSJ figures Freedom of Assembly is a right only rich business owners should enjoy.
But let's look at what the WSJ is really afraid of.
Consider the man likely to run the Judiciary Committee, Michigan's John Conyers, from the Congressional class of 1964. He recently made his plans clear in a 370-page report, "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution and Coverup in the Iraq War, and Illegal Domestic Surveillance." The report accuses the Administration of violating no fewer than 26 laws and regulations, and is a road map of Mr. Conyers's explicit intention to investigate grounds for impeaching President Bush.
[snip]
We also can't forget California's Henry Waxman (1974), among the most partisan liberals and who at Government Reform would compete with Mr. Conyers to see who could issue the most subpoenas to the Bush Administration.
O-V-E-R-S-I-G-H-T. Oversight. You know, that thing we pay Congress to do, to act as a check on the Executive Branch? You may have heard of the concept, way back when you learned about the Constitution? You know. Three separate branches of power that, together, ensure we don't turn into the Monarchy we formed this country to get away from?
So it's not just Clean Air, healthy children, and a decent wage. The WSJ is afraid of things like Free Speech, Freedom of Assembly, and Checks and Balances.
When it comes right down to it, the WSJ is asking its readers to fear our Constitution, that which makes this nation great. Why is the WSJ afraid of America's greatness?