to quote one of my liberal friend after the 2004 election, "i feel hurt, angry, and disenfranchised!" but i voted, so how can i feel "disenfranchised?" truth is, i don't, and i don't intend to give into the bitter, obstructionist despair that has characterized the democrats for the past six years. the american people have spoken, and we should hear their voice, and deal with the consequences. i don't really feel hurt either, but i do feel frustrated and i'm angry at republicans and democrats in pretty equal measure. angry at republicans since they took their eye off the ball, and did nothing to merit reelection, thereby conceding control to a party that is blinded by its hatred of GW Bush. And angry at the democrats for doing nothing for six years to merit election, and for working harder to defeat republicans than to defeat our country's enemies. and angry at both sides for such a profoundly cavalier performance while our nation is at war. A few specific thoughts- although repubilcans in general lost big, blue dogs and gay marriage bans won, so while the election may be a democratic victory, it wasn't by and large a liberal one. allen, if the results stand, is no big loss, nor is talent. casey and cardin are no great gains. webb may be-we'll see, but i'm caustiously optimistic. Steele is a big loss, for the republicans, the state of maryland, and the country in general. Ford was interesting, but he's a machine politician, the fords have run west tennessee politics for 30 years- i was in memphis when harold's daddy was elected to congress in 1976, amid widespread allegations of voter fraud. the son may be different, but i have my doubts. we'll see about corker- i'm hopeful he can continue in the vein of harold baker and lamar alexander. Hillary is a big winner, the nedroots less so. that dynamic will be interesting as she starts her presidential run. what does it say about the politics of ny state, when the republicans couldn't field a single worthwhile candidate for statewide office, and we relected a senator who will spend the next two years running for president rather than tending the needs of the people who elected her? Alan Hevesi and Robert Menedez' victories prove that corruption only matters if republicans are involved. NJ in particular has turned itself into the LA of the northeast. The democrats will now have to do something in congress- Pelosi scares me, but rangel, conyers, and waxman terrify me, and are far more liberal than some of the in-coming class. that tension will be fascinating. The republican leadership, in both houses, needs to go- they lost their way, and forgot why they were elected in the first place. and bush and the war? if the democrats spending the next two years masturbating politically, and do nothing but investigate the president, it will be a disaster for both the country and the war. the party has been intent on turning iraq into vietnam as a means of defeating the republicans. now it's time to see if they really understand who the opposition is. i can't understand how anyone could honestly believe defeat in iraq would be good for this country. and make no mistake- w/drawal before the job is done is defeat, whether you agree or not with why/how we got there in the first place. The president needs to double down on iraq, and remind the country why we're at war. never the best salesman for his own policies, he needs to spend some of that political capital he earned in 2004, while he's still got a little left. I could give a fig about bush's long term reputation, but i do care about his legacy-we must win. history will judge the democrats for their obstructionism, but will judge bush harsher if he fails to marshall the necessary forces, political and military, to prevail. two final thoughts, a rather hilarious interview last night w/ a drunken christopher hitchens: <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zinr5_GvcK8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zinr5_GvcK8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object> and John Podhoretz, who expresses my thoughts exactly: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzY0YTQ4YmUyMGY0YjFiNDc2NzQ2NTIyYjYwNmE3ZWU= [rquoter]Happy or suicidal with tonight's results, something colossal and profoundly important has happened in the United States beginning in 2000 — the re-engagement of the American people with politics. We have had four enormously consequential elections in a row now in which voters have cast their ballots in numbers that we were told we'd never see in our lifetimes. I don't see how you can view this as anything but a wondrous development for the United States.[/rquoter]
Buck up Basso. Maybe this will give more of an empathetic insight into the other side and understand why Democrats felt the way they did in last few elections. I thought you didn't oppose gay marriage?
They weren't blinded by it. There were eyes were opened because of it. Not hardly. They have provided alternative to failed war policy after alternative after failed war policy, all hamered, or tampered with by the GOP in control or shot down. except when they didn't win like in AZ., Actually it shows that there is more trust of the Dems to police its wrongdoers than the GOP who have shown they would rather cover corruption up than clean it up.
I think what we are seeing is that there is a blurring of the lines Karl Rove set for the definition of Liberal and Conservative. How an administration can call themselves conservative and run huge budget deficits and become entangled in foreign nation building is beyond Orwellian. However, in the past we have seen Rockefeller Republicans and George Wallace Democrats so if anything I guess it's the absurdity is a two party system in a multi-issue world. The lesson, I think is that in a plurality of ideas, centrist views and more statesmen like demeanors will be elected over idealouges and histrionics. Ask Bill, he''l tell ya.
i'm not taking comfort, just pointing out the contradiction between democratic gains and gay marriage bans.
the biggest "do nothing" congress in history. that is the Republicans fault, and they paid the price.
Exactly. The American public could only be duped by the "us vs. them" mantra for so long, particularly when it's being touted by a group of gigantic hypocrites.
Can I give my postmortem even if I don't identify myself as Republican? I am a conservative, and although the Democratic Party shifted heavily right, the balance of power did shift left. I feel like my side lost, at least a little. The Republican Party deserved it. They made campaign promises to control spending, cut taxes, defend the border (which I don't wholly agree with, but I digress), and hold the moral high ground. They did very little of that. They did cut taxes and spurred the economy, but otherwise stomped all over conservative values. They increased pork barrel spending, refused to make any real tax reform, despite a large groundswell for it, they infringed on personal privacy, concentrated power at the federal level, and increased the power of the Executive. More importantly, with the Department of Homeland Security, the ridiculous increase in FEMA (which has morphed into a welfare system), and the cluster that's called the Federal Prescription Drug program, they made insane increases in bureaucracy. Add to that the Democrats ran much better elections as a party. The Democrats as a party were able to successfully many good Republicans with Foley, Delay, and Bush. On the other hand, they were able to separate good Democratic candidates from Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and William Jefferson. Nancy Pelosi, especially, is seen very unfavorably as a whole in the country, but voters didn't see their local Blue Dog as a associated with her. Congratulations Democrats, you out-Roved Rove.
I think this is going to be the most interesting aspect of this. On the GOP side, they have to look at themselves and see what kind of party they want to be. The bad thing is that some of the moderates in the GOP got knocked out, meaning that the GOP may have a tendency go to further right, but I'm not that will happen. Evangelicals didn't vote strict GOP as they have in the past, so it blurs those lines a bit. On the Democrat side, it's time to lead. With control of both chambers, they have the opportunity to send real legislation to Bush. The question is whether they will try stupid stuff that will get vetoed, or stand up and say "you know what, you've given us a chance, and we're going to sit down and work with the other side and get common sense things done." I'm not sure what will happen - but Democrats have no excuses to not provide real, concrete solutions at this point. Iraq is a whole different issue, and I have no idea what to expect or what can play out there. I think one big area where Dems can have an impact is accountability. Corruption should be investigated. Things like the accountability office that was just shut down should be brought back, etc.
South Dakota rejected the abortion ban Arizona rejected an amendment to ban gay marriage Missouri approved a measure backing stem cell research those are are all big victories for "liberals"
I agree the return of accountability is a huge gain. And, while there are dozens of plans on the table... the options in Iraq range anywhere from bad to worse. I'd also like to see if perhaps the military could now get the funding it so desperatly needs to continue at it's current pace, and do something to ease the burden on our National Guard and Reserves. If we have to raise taxes to pay for the military, so be it.
Republican robocalls (and their other illegal voter suppression tatics) will likely be prosecuted to the full extent of the federal law. Bummer. To the victor goes the spoils and the pen to write the history. Bummer**2.
Ken's and Karl's 72 hour strategy for retaining both houses of Congress needs to be called into question and prosecuted where applicable.
Actually, since we're spinning heavily, I'm going to see your disdain and raise you some tsk tsk and say that it proves how absolutely rudderless and out of touch the national Republican party is in the Northeast in general, and NY in particular.
Maybe when you are despised to the point you are the only thing than unites historical enemies within a diverse and sizable foreign land it isn't "winnable" in the conventional sense. The question is now how we can best minimize damage to our fellow Amercians (causalties particularly) and minimize the further instability in that region we have inflamed. I don't have the answer on how to do both goals, but I have more confidence today our government will be forced to take its head out of the sand and deal with it more based on pragmatism than wishfull thinking.
