I find it very interesting, even when admitting defeat, that republicans try to explain it as somehow not being an indication of what people think of their policies. basso claims that 'Republicans too their eyes off the prize', which implies that if they just did a better job of explaining their views that they would have won. Christopher Hitchens calls the results 'idiosyncratic', 'mediocre', and 'inconclusive'. The Republicans did a great job of explaining their positions and the electorate responded in a decisive way that they didn't like it. The Democrats did run as 'anything but Republicans' but this just reinforces that the election was about approving or disapproving of the Republican message and the Republican leadership. There is no chance that if the Republicans could have explained themselves better that they would have won. They lost because the American electorate is dissatisfied with them and their message which comes through loud and clear.
Sam said it better than I did. Unified was a poor expression, (us as a) common enemy is about the other thing that may be greater than the hate for each other.
Well one of the three groups doesn't hate us at all. As for the Sunnis and Shiites, I'm not even sure you're correct there. They REALLY don't like each other. Anyway, the point is that such a statement is akin to saying 'all the parties in the US would like to have more money in their pockets.' It may be true but it doesn't really impact whether or not the intervention is 'winnable.' Of course, 'winnable' itself is completely subjective. Some of you would say it was a defeat if the Sunnis and Shiites came to terms and we withdrew. Some might say its already been a success.
What do you say, Hayes? And I haven't read a comment from you yet on the election, although I may have missed it. Iraq was a huge factor, and the American people overwhelmingly want a new direction. That much is clear. What direction that'll take, we'll have to see, but the status quo is clearly not in the picture. Rumsfeld finally going, thank god, is merely treating a symptom of the disease that in the disastrous Bush foreign policy. In my opinion, of course. I think Gates is a decent selection as Secretary of Defense. He's an intelligent guy, without the massive ego Rumsfeld used to push away all dissent. A small step, but welcome. We'll have to see what follows. Keep D&D Civil.
What do I say? I think that the Rovian tactics (which were really IMO just pages from McCarthy's book) work very well but only for a limited period. After that you are going to get thumped in the head with a backlash, even if your opposition doesn't have any substantive program of their own. Even if you aren't in the Rovian mold the American public does like to switch it up (see the vote for 'change' with Clinton over Bush). When you add all the stumbling and bumbling, corruption, and silly rule changing childishness of the GOP I don't think the election is a suprise except that the Democrats are so inept in return that GOP'ers probably held out hope for a victory anyway. Personally I'm glad to see the Republican's lose. They did too much tinkering for my taste and while the Democrats might run the country into the ground if they held both houses and the Presidency they are by and large less dangerous than the Republicans. I think the intervention in Iraq has been run extremely poorly and the Republicans had to pay for that. I wish there was more compromise and bipartisan cooperation. Although I fear gridlock with a split goverment I think it probably ensures a more moderate course, which is fine with me. Gates will be fine and Baker will probably step up to do whatever fixing is possible in Iraq. I'm still hopeful on that front. Oh, and I wish Kinky had won the governors race in Texas - Willie as energy czar would have been sweet.
Well said hayes. I too think this is less of a "democrats have a great plan" and more of a "screw the republicans' lack of a plan". As for Rove - this little turn of events could not have happened without his complete inability to act without politcal intent. Rove, the mastermind behind almost every act within the Bush Junta, has never cared at all for politcal ideology, even though he is a solid republican. I guess it's not that he was never interested in the republican method, just he cares for power more. But that kind of attack will backfire when your supporters get continually sold out for whatever achieves the current agenda. Man I could really go on about this, but I've got another bloody paper to write. Cheers, rhad PS - i really wish kinky had won too.
Did anyone else see that the travel alert got bumped to "elevated" yesterday? Someone in the Bush WH has a sense of humor.
