All Thumping Aside …

November 10th, 2006 · 21 Comments · Main, National

Forgive me for being so late in writing an election post mortem.

I was up half the night blogging in real time while watching the coverage, then got up first thing Wednesday morning and wrote a catch-all piece on the elections (link not yet available) for the Lakeville Journal.

I was suffering from election burn-out — the kind of weariness only a couple of days off from the madness can cure. He are my thoughts [photo of a humbled Bush courtesy WKYC-TV]:

Finally, the smirk recedes, or, as Gene Robinson wrote, “Now the Decider must listen.” In elections in which he himself has been the candidate, Bush is still undefeated (3-0-1, with 2000 counting as a tie), but it is hard to envision how the lame-duck president could have taken a greater drubbing than he did this week.

The Dems took control of the House by a landslide margin and, with the concession yesterday of “Sen. Macaca,” they will have a narrow majority in the Senate. It was, as former House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt said, “like 1994 in reverse.â€ A “thumping” is how the president himself put it.

It’s hard to disagree with any of that. The central question for me is: What have the American people repudiated? Conservatism? Republicans? I suspect more of the latter.

Of all the major reasons cited in exit polls about why voters went Democratic in such large numbers, I have seen none that signal a major idealogical shift of the sort that took place in ‘94. The decisive factor appeared to be the war in Iraq — which is neither conservative nor liberal. Just ask George Will.

The Republicans lost because, like the Dems in ‘94, they had become corrupt, arrogant, insufferable and void of ideas. There was not only the foolhardiness of giving the green light to Bush for the war (as did many Dems), but there were “bridges to nowhere,” truckloads of pork-laden earmarks intended to buy votes, reckless spending that has driven the country into debt, the cynical and strategic use of wedge issues such as gay marriage, a leadership that looked the other way as a congressman solicited teenagers online and the exposure of a right-wing preacher (with close ties to the White House) as a homosexual and a drug user.

Notice, as Will, aptly points out, presumptive Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not calling for a return to the 70% marginal tax rates that ended during the Reagan administration; nor is anyone crying for the repeal of the Welfare Reform Act signed by President Clinton under pressure from Dick Morris and a Republican Congress.

Items leading the agenda of the new Democratic Congress include raising the minimum wage, reducing interest rates on student loans, and passing the 9/11 Commission recommendations. And there is talk of congressional investigations of the Bush administration. Hardly doctrinaire or terribly liberal.

And they won’t have Rummy to kick around anymore. He has been replaced by former CIA Director Bob Gates, a former deputy to Bush 41 National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, who had written a critical op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal and, as a result, was persona non grata in Bush 43’s White House. And James A. Baker III, Bush 41’s secretary of state, was pronounced a “full partner” in war policy as a result of his leadership of the Iraq war study group. Evidently, a humbled Bush is looking to his daddy for help.

Locally, there was no compelling reason to throw out incumbent Republican Gov. Jodi Rell, so she stays. And apparently lots of people still like Joe Lieberman enough to return him to the Senate, despite his steadfast support of the war and his desire to remain in power at all costs.

Nancy Johnson, however, is a different story. I agree with Doug Richardson, the chairman of Salisbury Republican Town Committee whom I interviewed for my news story on the election. Johnson, who has been my congresswoman for 24 years, has done a good job of “bringing home the bacon” and it will clearly take awhile for Chris Murphy to gain the kind of clout Johnson had.

But on the other hand, Murphy will be in the majority party and as a successful challenger who was on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s A-List, he is bound to be rewarded with some plum committee assignments.

And as Steve Barlow pointed out in a comment on my previous post, Johnson’s relentlessly negative ad campaign wore thin and bespoke a candidate desperately clinging to power. I’m glad the election is over, if for no other reason than to be delivered from her smarmy and hideous commercials and glossy direct-mail pieces.

I will keep my eye on what the new Democratic Congress has up its sleeve and if they come up with some daring initiatives of the kind the GOP did in the 1994 Contract With America, then I will revise my opinion that this election is not a wholesale repudiation of conservatism. But at this early stage I see no indication that the Dems will move boldly forward. As Bill O’Reilly would say, “Am I wrong?”

Tags:

21 responses so far ↓

1 Fred Baumgarten // Nov 10, 2006 at 11:31 am

Dear Terry,

Kudos to you. This is what I would call a trenchant analysis.

My only question is: Might there be a disconnect between what the voters want and what choice they are offered? Clearly there is deep dissatisfaction over the war, corruption, etc., and these things brought the “Dems” to power in this election.

But the “Dems” such as they are, as you note, are really almost indistinguishable in their policies from the Republicans. What we have is a single “Republocracy” with a stranglehold on electoral politics.

There is an interesting piece online today showing how many of the newly elected Democrats are members of a group called Blue Dog Democrats who push a very conservative agenda — even the vaunted Kirsten Gillibrand over in this neck of the woods where I work, who toppled John Sweeney.

Perhaps the most puzzling win was Lieberman’s, but of course he had the benefit of virtually the entire Republican base plus his Democratic loyalists. I think many of us could see Lamont’s one-note opposition to the war as opportunist rather than principled, too.

–Fred–
2 Yankee // Nov 10, 2006 at 1:05 pm

Terry,

My sense is that Americans mainly rejected the Bush-led catastrophe in Iraq. This seems less an ideological decision by voters than a pragmatic, albeit tardy, realization that Bush et al have profoundly wasted American power, lives and political capital. Note also that the newly-elected Democrats tend to be more moderate than the hard-core liberal base. I take great heart from this kind of repudiation of Bush failures. This was an election that can only restore one’s faith in the power of elections to change the course of human events.
3 jake // Nov 10, 2006 at 1:45 pm

Spot on.

The general feeling on the right is that the defeat was the result of congressional Republicans forgetting the conservative values that originally got them elected. Many on this site I’m sure would disagree, but it may be instructive to see what the Republicans do now. Here’s a hint. McCain and others are sprinting to the right.

If that is a successful strategy (it won’t be for McCain, but that’s another story), Terry’s analysis will be confirmed and those who believe this election was about Bush and war will have to rethink their analysis.

PS Fred… how’s the research coming?
4 Wendy // Nov 10, 2006 at 2:37 pm

“foolheartiness”? Tsk tsk. I’ll forgive you because you’re tired.
5 Tom Cowgill // Nov 10, 2006 at 2:42 pm

The wars were probably the major factor in the election.

Another important issue is the ethical bankruptcy of much of the GOP leadership. Closed meetings with big oil and business on energy policy, massive deficits, Sciavo, lobyists writing legislation, bribery/Abramoff, all give the impression that the GOP is more concerned about their donors than about what’s good for the people. When the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction exposed bribery, contracts to cronies, shoddy work, lost billions of dollars, the failure to track hundreds of thousands of weapons shipped there, and more, the brilliant GOP move was to abolish the office.
6 Terry // Nov 10, 2006 at 2:50 pm

Pardon me, Wendy. It should be “foolhardiness.” It has been corrected. Thanks for noticing.
7 Fred Baumgarten // Nov 10, 2006 at 3:04 pm

Ah, Jake, you notice I’ve been ducking you?! Well, quite aside from being too busy (honestly) to do the level of research necessary, I’ve decided not too wade deeper into that swamp. I have my reputation to protect, and besides, I want to make sure I can get cement when I need it (okay, maybe that’s not the same Riva?);-)

So, for the sake of argument I’ll concede the point.

What’s important here, ultimately, is the war itself, and what’s wrong with it, i.e., everything. That’s a sentiment that’s been amply expressed on these pages.

–Fred–
8 jake // Nov 10, 2006 at 4:17 pm

Fred…

Concession accepted (and appreciated).

Perhaps in the future I’ll do a treatise on what has gone right in the war. But first you’ll have to square two of your comments for me… one saying that there is no war and the second saying everything is wrong with the war. I’ll need to understand those positions better to properly address the subject.

But don’t worry, no time limit.

Jake

PS Happy Birthday
9 Terry // Nov 10, 2006 at 4:36 pm

Along those same lines, read this. It’s LOL funny.
10 Fred Baumgarten // Nov 10, 2006 at 5:21 pm

What’s wrong with the “war”? Thousands of American servicemen killed, tens to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, mainly civilians, killed, bazillions of dollars — our dollars — spent on death and destruction, with the inevitable results being the breakup of a country into civil war with no end in sight, less safety in the world and more likely to be terrorism directed against us, total loss of US credibility and friendship in the world community…and on and on ad nauseum.

When is a war not a war? When it’s illegal, immoral, and illegitimate. When it involves the illegal invasion of a sovereign country undertaken under false pretenses and concocted as part of a larger “War on Terror,” which itself was concocted to keep the world and all of us in the “homeland” in a state of fear and privation, ever willing to give up our precious democratic freedoms — just the thing our troops are supposedly fighting for in Iraq.

Even the troops know that they are not really fighting a war in any palpable sense. They are actually sitting ducks for an increasingly powerful insurgency, ill-equipped for what they’re facing. Non-embedded commentators in Baghdad (none you’ll see in the MSM, of course) have observed that the troops are basically under seige inside the Green Zone. The only alternative left to them, in the absence of a readily identifiable “army” to fight, is to randomly knock down doors and knock over houses and villages — in so doing exposing themselves to even greater danger. The MSM may not tell us this, but the numbers of increasing fatalities don’t lie.

As another commentator noted, there are really only two choices: “cut and run” now, or “cut and run” later. There is no good foreseeable outcome of our staying in Iraq. We might as well bring the troops home now.

Despite harboring no illusions about the Democrats making a difference, I do take solace in the belief that this election WAS a strong statement by the voting public against the war, as Terry notes.

–Fred–
11 Doug Richardson // Nov 10, 2006 at 6:43 pm

I suspect that is it was Neoconservatisim that was rejected. I have long held, and stated publicly, that the PNAC-bred agenda no more represents traditional Republican thought than Scientology represents christian thought. Both are mutations.
12 jake // Nov 10, 2006 at 8:33 pm

“When is a war not a war? When itâ€™s illegal, immoral, and illegitimate.”

OK, got that part.

“Whatâ€™s wrong with the â€œwarâ€?”

Who asked that question? (Certainly not I. I just claimed that I could come up with some things that have gone right with it.)

Fair minded people can look at the world and see different things. But I challenge you to offer any direct evidence that the Americans fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan don’t think they are fighting a war. Frankly, Fred, that is an absurd statement.

I have had constant contact with military personnel throughout this war and I have never heard that sentiment. Not once. Can you say you have? Do you speak to military people often? Have you spoken to someone in the military in the past year? Do tell.

In fact, if there is anyone who sees the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan within the context of a strategic threat from a monolithic enemy, it is the people in the military… much more than civilians.

Here’s part of an e-mail I got yesterday from a good friend who is the Northern Command’s staff officer for special operations.

“I returned from Afghanistan 8 Oct. A bit different engagement than Iraq. The volume of violence not as great but much more activity than in the past year and will likely increase in the near term until we do something about the Taliban and AQ sanctuary in Pakistan.

Unfortunately, my boys (note: his ten and eight year old sons) will likely be fighting the disciples of this Islamic ideology. From where I sit it appears to be a global Islamic insurgency. The US citizenry needs to think in terms of the Cold War. We’re fighting an ideology. We’ll ultimately prevail but I think it will be at the cost of another 9/11 type event before the populace realizes the severity of the threat facing the nation.”

He, as well as all other military people I know, see this as a long term, strategic threat that began to emerge in the 1970’s (with oil wealth) and will continue to be around until the Arab nations are fully integrated into the global economy. I myself barely missed getting my ass blown off by Hezbollah in 1983. In 1985 I participated in an Iraq War exercise implemented because the Marines thought that Iraq was the most likely next action (I guess they were right). This has been going on for a long time and it will continue. The difference between then and now is that due to 9/11, a lot of people who weren’t paying attention are now, and agree that it needs to be dealt with.

As for your “cut or run now” or “cut or run later” statement, I would humbly suggest that the real situation is that the US and the modern world will “fight now” or “fight later”, but we will fight these guys. They aren’t going anywhere. Having sat in a Madrassa in Pakistan (in 1996) and watched what goes on there, I can assure you this “little action” is going to be ongoing for a while.

If you think pulling troops out of Iraq is going to put an end to the threat of Islamic radicalism, you have a big surprise coming. And I mean BIG.
13 Tom Cowgill // Nov 10, 2006 at 10:22 pm

No one I know thinks pulling troops out of Iraq is going to put an end to the threat of Islamic radicalism. Neither is it going to make the threat of Islamic radicalism worse. The war in Iraq was about the threat of Sadam Huesin, for what it was, and probably the only good outcome will be getting rid of him.

Paint your best senario for an outcome in Iraq and I will say that it is not worth the death of a single American soldier.
14 terry mccarthy // Nov 11, 2006 at 9:27 am

Rumsfeld’s comments on the day he - pick one of the following:

1./ Was fired
2./ Resigned

were brief, albeit thick with meaning. At least for those willing to read between the lines. Quoting Churchill was a way for Rummy to tell those of us who aren’t nearly as smart as the ex DOD chief that he will be remembered as Winston is recalled. As someone who was right about this century’s gathering storm. The present tense means little to men like Rummy. It’s all about the future. His contempt for journalists is based on the notion that reporters are obsessed with what is happening now. It’s the historians men like Rummy are thinking about. In that sense, he wasn’t talking to anyone in the Oval Office. He wasn’t talking to us. He was speaking to an audience who will be there long after he’s left the stage. And his words about how complex and how difficult to understand is this war ( battle? ) in Iraq. Implicit was this: Only people like me, Donald Rumsfeld, really understand it. People like you just don’t get it. All in all they were the words of a dangerous man, a man whose ilk we can do without. And will for awhile. But there will be others like him, others who compare themselves to people like Winston Churchill. When in fact they bear little or no resemblance to THAT wartime icon.
15 fred // Nov 11, 2006 at 12:41 pm

i often listen to howard stern on sirius radio during my morning commute. he said the other day, that the only way to bring stability back into iraq is to put sadam hussien back in power. I think someone on the IMUS show said something to that sort as well.

I dont agree with that. the exit stratgey should be left to the ones with the inteligence to make one. but are they on to something… or just on something?

just adding another log on the fire that is this thread.
16 Tom Cowgill // Nov 11, 2006 at 2:31 pm

They are having trouble getting Rummy to leave his office. Apparently he had no post resignation plan.
17 Fred Baumgarten // Nov 14, 2006 at 12:15 am

Yes, Jake, reasonable people can disagree.

No, I have not spoken to any soldiers. Nor do I believe that doing so is a prerequisite for criticizing the war.

Your average enlisted man or woman is going to toe the company line. No surprise there. You have to believe in the virtue of what you’re doing if you’re going to put your life on the line. But that doesn’t make it right.

Interestingly, it was the military (or at least the military press) that called for Rummy’s head, and got it. That, my friend, is just the tip of the iceberg. The generals’ unhappiness with the situation in Iraq is no big secret. I stand by my assertions. Aside from being wrong, this war is an unmitigated disaster for everyone, our servicemen and women included, and will only get worse. More of our soldiers are dying every day. The facts on the ground are indisputable.

One other fact: Many soldiers have come back from Iraq and Afghanistan and become critics of the war effort. Many others have refused to join the war effort. Another story suppressed by the MSM.

There is so much more, but seeing as how its near midnight….let me just say that your “Cold War” analogy is truly, truly frightening–and not (I believe) in the sense that you mean. It sums up for me everything that is wrong about where this country is headed. It is absolutely false:

(1) We know that the terrorists behind 9/11 have no connection to Iraq and at best a tenuous connection to Afghanistan.

(2) The idea of a clash of ideologies is as false as “they hate our freedoms.” Terrorism is an act of violence and hatred, yes, but it is directed at a stronger foe and has a political origin — in this case, to fight U.S. policy and meddling in the Middle East.

If there is any “war on freedom,” it is the one being waged by our own government on us and just about everyone else in the world. In the space of a few years, we have had most of our underlying liberties taken away from us, right down to habeas corpus — all in the name of endless war against an amorphous enemy.

I hope to God this is not the world my children or your soldier’s children inherit. Our country has become like a gigantic child having a tantrum, albeit one with the power to do immeasurable harm and destruction. I suspect that even a child can see that. To think that we can bomb and kill our way to freedom and a happy ending is what is truly absurd, rather than actually trying to deal with what’s wrong in the world and engaging in constructive (any?) dialogue. If there is another 9/11, God forbid, we will know why.
18 Fred Baumgarten // Nov 14, 2006 at 12:20 am

P.S. Jake, you wrote: –â€œWhatâ€™s wrong with the â€œwarâ€?â€ Who asked that question? (Certainly not I. I just claimed that I could come up with some things that have gone right with it.)–
You also wrote previously: –youâ€™ll have to square two of your comments for meâ€¦ one saying that there is no war and the second saying everything is wrong with the war. Iâ€™ll need to understand those positions better to properly address the subject.–

Thus, my previous post was an attempt to just that, squre the two comments.

P.P.S. Terry, what say’st thou, o professed critic of the Iraq war?
19 Fred Baumgarten // Nov 14, 2006 at 12:40 am

Although it would be completely ridiculous to draw such a conclusion from what I’ve said, I fear that someone will respond with the sickening accusation that I am “supporting the terrorists.”

I hope I don’t need to explain why this would be a terrible lie, why I am repulsed by any and every terrorist act, and why there is a difference between seeking to “excuse, justify, or rationalize” an act of terrorism and those who perpetrate it, and seeking the underlying causes (some of which may permit rational analysis, others not) for the act, in the hopes that we might address them and, by removing the causes, lessen the chances of further terrorism.

Thank you.
20 Terry // Nov 14, 2006 at 6:31 am

“Professed critic,” Fred? Durst thou question my anti-Iraq war bona fides? I’m not sure I want to wade into this wetland, so I’ll just dip in my pinkie toe.

This is going to sound like I am striking a moderate pose, but I fully supported going into Afghanistan and still do. I initially supported the Iraq war against my better instincts, but turned against it when evidence mounted that it was not winnable and that the intel was cherry-picked to clear the way for public support.

You’re right, there is little or no direct connection linking Iraq to AQ, but I think they were linked in Bush’s mind. I think he and the other neocons made the decision right after 9/11 (or maybe even before) that the only way to confront Islamist fascism was not only to go at the source (Afghanistan) but to go into that part of the world and kick somebody’s ass to convince them we were willing to shed American blood to defend this country.

And Iraq looked like a great place to start. Hussein was unpopular with just about everyone (except for Sunnis in Iraq) and we had this little score to settle with him anyway. But this would be a hard sell, so the Bush admin seized on the WMD issue because it was the most readily accessible and marketable. Hardly an honest approach.

But I share Jake’s position that this is a global threat that my children and yours will live with for quite some time; nor do I think the Cold War analogy is off-base. I just don’t think this misadventure in Iraq has made matters any better. But at this point “removing the causes” (or changing our policies because we are under attack) does not “lessen the chances of further terrorism,” but invites more attacks.

If you were a terrorist and thought your acts were forcing your enemy to change his policies, would you be satisfied with that? Would others with grievances against your enemy step forward and employ the same tactics? I think you know the answer.

As for being like a “gigantic child having a tantrum,” that’s not a very apt metaphor, especially since I don’t think you are referring to Iraq only. We were attacked on 9/11 in a way that was unprecedented. Swift decisive was called for (Afghanistan, detaining enemy combatants). It’s my understanding the proposed lifting of habeas corpus applies to non-US citizens — hardly “a war on our freedoms.” Not a tantrum but a spanking we are giving to our enemies.

So much for getting my toe wet …
21 Fred Baumgarten // Nov 14, 2006 at 12:38 pm

Thank you, Terry. More on this later. Only want to say that “professed critic” was not at all meant in to be derogatory….just to lure you into the debate. Success!

–Fred–

CIPRO AND BOTULISM

ILLINOIS BREAST AUGMENTATION RESULT

INFORMATION PRILOSEC

FELDENE DRUG INTERACTIONS

SELL METHOX

ACYCLOVIR ZOVIRAX BUY ONLINE HOME

ULTRAM DIAZEPAM DRUG INTERACTION

AKANE PHOTO SOMA

NUTRA CORE HOODIA

NYSTATIN CREAM FOR BABIES

WHAT IS THE MEDICATION VESICARE USED FOR

NEURONTIN SETTLEMENT

PHARMACY CANADIAN BOARD

CYMBALTA DEPRESSION

CIMETIDINE FOR DOGS PETS

POTASSIUM CLAVULANATE AMOXICILLIN

VIAGRA 3

MOTRIN 800 IBUPROFEN FEVER

TAKING SYNTHROID STILL FEELING BAD

NEURONTIN TREMORS SIDE EFFECTS

TYPES OF MORPHINE DRUGS

DARVOCET VICODIN PERCOCET

CIALIS KEYWORD

DIPLOMA LEXAPRO WITHDRAWALS

CESTEX FOR CATS

CAN LAMICTAL CAUSE ELEVATED LIVER ENZYMES

FALSE POSITIVIES BENZOS ZOLOFT

SPIRIVA SIDE EFFECTS IN CHILDREN

DEPAKOTE SPRINKLE 125 MG

SUPER CHITOSAN WITH ABSORBITOL

RANITIDINE HCL

GINSENG RED WHITE

THEOPHYLLINE LEVELS DRUGS

PURE HOODIA PLUS DIET CAPSULES

EN LEVITRA LOC LOC US

ORDER FIORICET CHEAPER

ADDICTION PAXIL

COD DESYRELLE

CLA AWARD WINNERS

NAME OF GENERIC LIPITOR

OLANZAPINE SIDE EFFECTS DOCTOR

CELEBREX AND CANCER TREATMENT

ACCUTANE ROCHE

CIPRO TREAT

HEMOGLOBIN HGH

LOTENSIN GENERIC

HYDROCHLOROTHIAZIDE 25MG SPIRONOLACTONE

ARTHRITIS MEDICATION ARAVA

AMIODARONE HYDROCHLORIDE LITIGATION

CIALIS MEDIX

INTERACTION LEXAPRO AND CELEBREX

HREF LEVITRA

GLUCOSAMINE SULFATE MSM CARTILAGE

NALTREXONE SIDE EFFECTS IN AUTISTIC CHILDREN

DOSE MEDROL PACK

EUROPEAN HGH

ARICEPT FOR SHORT TERM MEMORY LOSS

HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE MEDICINE BENICAR

THE CHEAPEST TRAMADOL ONLINE

WITHOUT PRESCRIPTION IMITREX

ADVANTAGE 20

CEPHALEXIN EFFECTS KEFLEX SIDE

DILANTIN AND LUPUS

KYTRIL PREGNANCY

DYNACIRC CR PATIENT ASSISTANCE

FOSAMAX AND HAIR LOSS

DISPOSABLE SYRINGE MANUFACTURER IN CHINA

NUTRILITE CLA 500 INGREDIANTS

NITE BRITE LIGHT FIXTURES

FLUCONAZOLE 150MG

EVA LONGORIA PHOTO SHOOT HOT

ALLEGRA D HR

BUY BUSPAR ONLINE WITHOUT PRESCRIPTION

BIAXIN AND ALCOHOL DRUG

LIFT BAN EPHEDRA

ORDER ZOLOFT ONLINE

BUY CHROMONEXIN

PRICE OF SEROQUEL

TRAMADOL NO RX

IS SELEGILINE PATCH AVAILABLE