1) Joe Lieberman is now a man of extraordinary power in the Senate. It was a big mistake by the Democrats to go after him. Expect flowers and candy...
2) Presidential Aspirations Watch:
JOHN McCAIN: Strengthened. The possibility of losing the White House in addition to both houses of Congress will be too much for some McCain-hating Republicans to bear.
RUDY GIULIANI: Strengthened. See McCain comments. Look for Rudy to "rethink" partial birth abortion to become more palatable for the base.
MITT ROMNEY: Mixed. Some think his outsider status will help him. I think the fear of losing may cause Republicans to go with McCain or Rudy.
BILL FRIST: (crickets).
GEORGE ALLEN: (sound of 'Taps').
HILLARY CLINTON: Strengthened. Got the big victory, campaigned for lots of Dems (IOUs), and still has tons of money.
BARACK OBAMA: Strengthened. He was all over TV and the country campaigning. Never a better time for him to run.
3) The Real Story of the Democrats: Contrary to netroots celebration, the story was recruiting moderate, even conservative Democrats to run in key House races and a few Senate races. The Ned Lamont debacle and new Lieberman power demonstrates that the radical wing of the party only hurts the larger interests of the Democrats. It was a good night for pro-life Democrats.
4) The Santorum lovefest at NRO's The Corner comes to a merciful end. Kathryn Jean-Lopez has pretty much pinned the fate of Western civilization on Santorum's re-election. We're doomed! It culminated with her prediction that Santorum would win. This is either rally-the-troops rhetoric or just a really off-base prediction. Either way not the best moment for the hardworking Cornerite. It may behoove Lopez, Peggy Noonan and others to consider why he was so thoroughly repudiated...
5) John Podhoretz wrote in the NY Post that the Bush presidency is now over. Agreed. This result was all about Bush and very little about what the Democrats offered. Fair play. Now comes the work of Democrats telling the country what you are FOR. As for Bush, now he can contemplate how it all went wrong: betraying your base, incompetence on many fronts, stubbornly counterproductive loyalty to Donald Rumsfeld, and the tragedy of missed opportunities in Iraq. Oh, and how there's really more than one moment of accountability...
6) Funny how little we are hearing about voting machine malfunction today. No doubt if Republicans had narrowly held Congress it would be the same...
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Comments
Dem Nom for 2008
Think being relative unknown will be good for BObama. He doesn't have years of potentially damaging comments(Kerry) and votes (Gore). He's charismatic (Dukakis) and articulate. Being African-american will help him with many voters despite his lack of having been through what is called the "typical AA experience" (see Barak isn't Black like me" from last wk).
I think HRClinton will face strong resistance from those in the country who think she and her husband are "of the devil". It doesn't mean she wouldn't be a better president than Mr. Obama. Dick Cheney once quipped that HRC is the only person at the center of more conspiracy theories than he was. I think that hurts her.
She is helped by having more governing experience. I'm curious to see how being a female candidate will play. It's been 22 yrs since Mondale/Ferraro, so this could play better.
How interesting would it be to have our kids memorize presidents and come to a Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton section.
I think I spy the work of
Downtown Reggie Brown. Encyclopedia/Reggie, it's good to have you writing. This was your typical trenchant analysis. You were made for this medium.
2008
It's already down to those four - McCain, Guiliani, Clinton, and Obama. Other names will pop up for brief moments (see: Howard Dean in 2004), but those are the only four legit ones and one of them will definitely be the next president.
I do disagree with your last point. While we aren't hearing tons about the voting problems right now - it's still a big issue for Democrats and it had better be one of the first things they push for reform on with their new legislative power. The issue is still there and they can't leave 2008 open for the kind of problems that only seem to hurt them.
Reply to Guru: Talking about Irregularities
Guru, thanks for the comment. I'm not sure you do disagree with my last point, however, because you wrote, "While we aren't hearing tons about the voting problems right now..." Exactly. We aren't hearing about it. Why? I think, frankly, it's because the Democrats were victorious--deservedly so, btw. Would the NY Times have a big story on voter irregularities if Republicans held both houses? Is there really any doubt?
Now onto the substance of the issue: The Democrats won a fair election, an election that had irregularites and goofs like every other one in American history, new technologies notwithstanding. Florida 2000 was a catastrophe whose roots were in faulty and misunderstood ballots. Newspaper studies of the ballots came to different conclusions. It was a trainwreck for democracy. But frankly, I find it unseemly how often this is trotted out even preemptively to thwart or explain defeat. Sometimes, as is the case with Kerry and Ohio, a better explanation is the deficiency of the campaign. The best explanation for yesterday is the many deficiencies of the Bush Administration. Hey, let's be diligent and watchful in a quest to make every vote count and elections honest. But problems will always be with us. History will too...and it will show skeletons in both Republican and Democratic closets. JFK, Chicago, and 1960 anyone?
Encyclopedia Brown
Okay
I think I may have misunderstood your point. I think we're all being way too kind and PC to keep calling these irregularities and goofs. 95% + of them work in the Republicans advantage (just like almost all the studies of 2000 Florida showed and like almost every study of these electronic machines shows and like all the stuff in Ohio in 2004 showed) and often it's through machines made by companies with incredibly strong political ties to the Republicans. Don't get me wrong - I give the Republicans credit for having the power and trying to manipulate into keeping the power. But we wouldn't be hearing about those problems if the Republicans had whitewashed the Democrats yesterday either. We hear about them when they change outcomes. The Democrats aren't talking about it today because it's not really in play anywhere. But once the races are settled and the power shift is on, I fully hope and expect to see the Democrats in congress to push for real, equitable voter protection.
Re: Okay
Guru,
Let me start with the voting machines. I find it extraordinarily difficult to believe that a Republican CEO of a voting machine company is instructing his minions to program the machines so they skew Republicans. Seriously? Maybe I've missed some damning details, but it's quite the logical leap to assume fraud on the basis of a company CEO's political views. Should we pass a law that forces states to buy from voting machine companies whose CEOs are documented registered independents? If so, we should extend this to all employees with access to the machines. They must all be politically neutral. No, what we need is evidence of impropriety--proof that a CEO or high-ranking employee tampered with machines to influence an election. Anything short of that is borderline slander.
Second, Ohio in 2004. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Rolling Stone piece made the most famous case for fraud. But then Farhad Manjoo of Salon.com came along and dismantled Kennedy's sloppy, insinuating case here: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/03/kennedy/index_np.html
Mystery Pollster, a Democrat, finds serious problems with Kennedy's assumptions about exit polls, upon which his case hinges: http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2006/06/is_rfk_jr_right.html
There were problems in Ohio, perhaps even cases of partisan bias--which happens in nearly every state b/c many of these election officials are...partisans! Not rationalizing it away, and by all means let's deal with problems. But Bush won Ohio beyond any reasonable doubt. No lingering resentment about Florida 2000 or frustration at his hugely disappointing Presidency can change that.
Florida was a disaster. I think more Floridians intended to vote for Gore than Bush that day. But consider this: The famous NORC study out of the U of Chicago--sponsored by a collection of major newspaper and media organizations--looked at various scenarios regarding recounts and ballot decisions. If Gore had gotten what he first wanted--hand recounts in 4 heavily Democratic counties--he still would have lost the election by 225 votes. Also, if the Florida Supreme Ct's call for a recount (under the guidelines which local officials said they would use) had been allowed by our national Supreme Ct, Bush would have won by 493 votes. Now, there are other ballot allowance scenarios that give Gore the advantage. For example: overvotes, and the Palm Beach County standard (see article link below for details). But the butterfly ballots with two names punched--the law didn't allow those to be counted. Here's a succinct overview of the NORC study:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html
Bottom line: I don't blame Gore and Democrats feeling robbed. But they were victimized by the Florida election infrastructure, which turned this election into a complete catastrophe. The subsequent politicization by both camps make it even more difficult to assess the truth of the matter. But stolen election? I dunno. I remember both sides pushing for any political spin, legal framework, or counting scenario which would secure victory. But you will get no argument from me that massive reforms should continue to be pursued.
Encyclopedia Brown
Mid-term results...
I'm very pleased with everything outlined in Encylopedia's 3rd point. Good to see the Dems come back to the middle. I was shocked to hear the change of tone from Nancy Pelosi last night, who I've never been a fan of. She seems to realize her role has suddenly become vastly different. Let's hope she remembers what won her party the House (and probably the Senate)... moderate and even conservative pro-life democrats.
We are out there. People who believe in social programs and safety nets, but who believe in fiscal responsisiblity and want to see govt. run efficiently. People who want a less hawkish, more diplomatic foreign policy, but understand that we can't just walk out on Iraq. People who are consistently pro-life (i.e. anti-death penalty and anti-abortion). People who belive in sensible, fair govt. regulation of business to promote a more healthy environment and protect the rights of workers, but who understand the benefits of a free-market and who also want the govt. off their backs when it comes to civil liberties and personal freedom. People who are patriotic and believe in the great possiblity of the American Dream, but also believe in checks and balances, strong oversight and govt. accountability. People who believe that being pro-life doesn't just mean figthing for the rights of the unborn, but also for the rights of all people in this world.
For the first time in a long time, I feel like I might have a party to call home. But will the dems lead with fairness, good-faith debating and sound policy, winning over conservatives and moderates, or will they squander a golden opportunity to lift America out of its post-9/11 doldrums? We will have to wait and see how this all pans out. One thing is certain, I like George W. Bush's new demeanor in the wake of all this; I think he finally GETS IT. And some new blood at the Pentagon isn't going to hurt. Anyone else surprised he actually canned Rumsfeld? I thought he'd die on that hill.
Also, any thoughts on the choice of Robert Gates as new defense secretary?
Thoughts on Gates
Bob Parry, known for his Iran-Contra investigative reporting, wrote about the Gates 1991 confirmation hearings when GHW Bush nominated Gates as Director of the CIA.
I don't know why this shocks me, but as the head of Intelligence under William Casey, Gates handled Casey's, "perception management" which apparently included politicizing the intelligence.
Led by Goodman, these dissidents fingered Gates as a key player in the campaign. The "politicization" testimony added more doubts about Gates, who already was under fire for his dubious testimony on the Iran-contra scandal.
From a New York Times article in 1991 called Slanting of Intelligence Becomes Issue for Nominee,
Two thoughts about Bush's nomination of Bob Gates come to mind. The first is that someone with a record of perception management may help the White House continue to close its eyes where Iraq is concerned, but really does not do much for the Iraq problem itself or fulfil American's expectations of solving the Iraq problem. And the second thought is that we have been here before, it didn't work then, it's probably not going to work now.
Our great democracies still tend to think that a stupid man is more likely to be honest than a clever man. Bertrand Russell
The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory. Sun Tzu
Netroots, Moderates, etal
The impression I've gotten is that the big winner is Thomas Frank, he of What's the Matter with Kansas fame. The prescription latent in the book is that if liberals sidestep culture war issues, they'd romp. And it looks like that thesis has been born out: from what I've seen, the "moderate" democrats are conservative or moot on cultural issues, but are pretty fiery on classic populist issues. They're anti-trade and pro-redistributionist on tax policy. It's classic William Jennings Bryant stuff, and I'd wager that Frank is still on a celebratory bender.
Post new comment