changes
I was right about one thing. I predicted the turnout on Tuesday would be high, like Presidential election year high, and it was.
Everything else I predicted? Wrong. I thought we'd keep both the House and the Senate, regardless of what the prognosticators said.
Iraq and the economy. One is going badly, the other is going along swimmingly well, yet the Democrats were able to convince a good portion of Democratic and Independent voters that they were right.
I wrongly believed that a political party couldn't win something with nothing. But that's what happened. They won, but it wasn't quite the spanking many have called it. Thirty seats in the House, six in the Senate and six governorships. I might call it a wave, but only in the sense that the tide seemed to seep into states like Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio, usually reliable Red States.
And the wave was made possible and was successful, in part, because of ballot initiatives like increasing the minimum wage, gay marriage, stem cell research and immigration reform, all huge, winning issues for the Democrats.
Why did we lose? Historically, we were bound to lose our Majority in the sixth year of the Bush Presidency. But from a legislative standpoint, had Majority Leaders Frist and Hastert actually led Congress and gotten things done, like Social Security reform, making the Bush tax cuts permanent and doing something about illegal immigration, the election results would have been much different.
And the Democrats played the game better than we did. They did what Democrats always do: They pretend they are Republicans. Many of the new Democrats elected to the House are described as being 'conservative or moderate Democrats.' That should change pretty fast come January.
I'm disgusted that a Liberal lightweight like Claire McCaskill defeated a substantive guy like Jim Talent in Missouri. I'm disgusted that Michael Steele lost in Maryland. I'm disgusted that New Jersey elected a corrupt Liberal slimeball like Bob Menendez over Tom Kean, Jr. (Of course, its not all bad news. For example, I'm thrilled that Bob Corker beat Harry Ford and held Tennessee, and I'm ecstatic that RINO Lincoln Chafee went down in Rhode Island.)
Yes, my friends. The perception this year was that the GOP wasn't doing anything. And that killed us at the ballot box on Tuesday.
Many of you know me personally. You know that I'm an optimist, so I think I'm okay with the House being controlled by the Dems. I know that Wall Street loves divided government. From a pocketbook perspective, that could be profitable for all of us. From a legislative vantage point, I'm less enthused, but I'll keep an open mind. (I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall today at the Bush/Pelosi lunch.) The Democrats are saying they will lead, saying that they will be bi-partisan. They are saying they won't launch investigation after investigation into Halliburton and Katrina.
They would be smart not to do so because it would cement continued GOP dominance in '08 and beyond. No the Dems would be wise to play nice, cooperate with the Bush Administration and get things done for the country, like they say they want to do.
I know I'm much less okay with the Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid? Gag. Patrick Leahy is now chairman of Judiciary, which means that if/when there are additional Supreme Court vacancies these next two years, a Roberts or Alito type judge won't have a chance in hell of getting confirmed.
About Rumsfeld. His resignation has obviously been in the works a few weeks now, although we just learned about it yesterday. I'm annoyed with Bush for not making this change earlier, because it could have made a big difference. I think the country was waiting for the President to acknowledge that things in Iraq are not what they should be, and a stepping-aside by Rumsfeld would have assuaged many voters.
W's been wholly supportive of Rummy for six years and even came out in complete support last week saying that the Defense Secretary would serve the remainer of Bush's term. Dumping Rummy now in favor of one of his dad's old cronies, makes the President look desperate and weak, the exact opposite of how he should be looking, although one could also consider the resignation to be smart politcs, given the fact that it now robs Democrats of myriad opportunities they would have sought to make Congressional theatre out of Rumsfeld and the mistakes in Iraq.
Here's my biggest concern. Tuesday's elections will be viewed as a repudiation of Bush policy. Just how much has the United States been weakened in the eyes of the Muslim extremists with the Democratic takeover of Congress?
Everything else I predicted? Wrong. I thought we'd keep both the House and the Senate, regardless of what the prognosticators said.
Iraq and the economy. One is going badly, the other is going along swimmingly well, yet the Democrats were able to convince a good portion of Democratic and Independent voters that they were right.
I wrongly believed that a political party couldn't win something with nothing. But that's what happened. They won, but it wasn't quite the spanking many have called it. Thirty seats in the House, six in the Senate and six governorships. I might call it a wave, but only in the sense that the tide seemed to seep into states like Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio, usually reliable Red States.
And the wave was made possible and was successful, in part, because of ballot initiatives like increasing the minimum wage, gay marriage, stem cell research and immigration reform, all huge, winning issues for the Democrats.
Why did we lose? Historically, we were bound to lose our Majority in the sixth year of the Bush Presidency. But from a legislative standpoint, had Majority Leaders Frist and Hastert actually led Congress and gotten things done, like Social Security reform, making the Bush tax cuts permanent and doing something about illegal immigration, the election results would have been much different.
And the Democrats played the game better than we did. They did what Democrats always do: They pretend they are Republicans. Many of the new Democrats elected to the House are described as being 'conservative or moderate Democrats.' That should change pretty fast come January.
I'm disgusted that a Liberal lightweight like Claire McCaskill defeated a substantive guy like Jim Talent in Missouri. I'm disgusted that Michael Steele lost in Maryland. I'm disgusted that New Jersey elected a corrupt Liberal slimeball like Bob Menendez over Tom Kean, Jr. (Of course, its not all bad news. For example, I'm thrilled that Bob Corker beat Harry Ford and held Tennessee, and I'm ecstatic that RINO Lincoln Chafee went down in Rhode Island.)
Yes, my friends. The perception this year was that the GOP wasn't doing anything. And that killed us at the ballot box on Tuesday.
Many of you know me personally. You know that I'm an optimist, so I think I'm okay with the House being controlled by the Dems. I know that Wall Street loves divided government. From a pocketbook perspective, that could be profitable for all of us. From a legislative vantage point, I'm less enthused, but I'll keep an open mind. (I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall today at the Bush/Pelosi lunch.) The Democrats are saying they will lead, saying that they will be bi-partisan. They are saying they won't launch investigation after investigation into Halliburton and Katrina.
They would be smart not to do so because it would cement continued GOP dominance in '08 and beyond. No the Dems would be wise to play nice, cooperate with the Bush Administration and get things done for the country, like they say they want to do.
I know I'm much less okay with the Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid? Gag. Patrick Leahy is now chairman of Judiciary, which means that if/when there are additional Supreme Court vacancies these next two years, a Roberts or Alito type judge won't have a chance in hell of getting confirmed.
About Rumsfeld. His resignation has obviously been in the works a few weeks now, although we just learned about it yesterday. I'm annoyed with Bush for not making this change earlier, because it could have made a big difference. I think the country was waiting for the President to acknowledge that things in Iraq are not what they should be, and a stepping-aside by Rumsfeld would have assuaged many voters.
W's been wholly supportive of Rummy for six years and even came out in complete support last week saying that the Defense Secretary would serve the remainer of Bush's term. Dumping Rummy now in favor of one of his dad's old cronies, makes the President look desperate and weak, the exact opposite of how he should be looking, although one could also consider the resignation to be smart politcs, given the fact that it now robs Democrats of myriad opportunities they would have sought to make Congressional theatre out of Rumsfeld and the mistakes in Iraq.
Here's my biggest concern. Tuesday's elections will be viewed as a repudiation of Bush policy. Just how much has the United States been weakened in the eyes of the Muslim extremists with the Democratic takeover of Congress?
posted by Kent at 10:07 AM
10 Comments:
Hey Kent, glad to see you get the energy back to write a post. Don't get too down my friend, it's not the end of the world. Yeah, some things will be different but life will go on.
I was surprised too by the Blue Wave. I'm always cautious about predicting things. And as you know, I was wrong too. I thought for sure a 15 seat pickup in the house would be way too much for the Dems. I was wrong. And 6 seats in the senate never crossed my mind. I was wrong again. But being that I'm a Democrat, I'm feeling pretty good right now. It's nice to be on the winning end for a change. Though these next two years the Dems better deliver or it will be a short-lived revolution. At least the Republicans got 12 years. We'll see how long the Dems last.
Because I have all kinds of free time now, I will contend the part of your post where you say:
"I wrongly believed that a political party couldn't win something with nothing. But that's what happened. They won, but it wasn't quite the spanking many have called it. Thirty seats in the House, six in the Senate and six governorships. I might call it a wave, but only in the sense that the tide seemed to seep into states like Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio, usually reliable Red States."
To me it's a wave indeed. If '94 was a revolution like so many Republicans like to believe, then '06 is as well. In '94 the Repubs picked up only the house. On Tuesday the Dems picked up the house, senate and the majority of governorships. Also, an incumbent Democrat did not lose a single race. That's way more of a success than anything in 1994.
Also, "Historically, we were bound to lose our Majority in the sixth year of the Bush Presidency," just isn't true. Since WWII, the modern era, here is the tally of 6th year president's:
1958: Eisenhower--Republicans lost 48 seats
1986: Reagan--Republicans lost 5 seats
1998: Clinton--Democrats gained 5 seats
So only once in the last 50 years has the president's party lost more than 30 house seats. Rush Limbaugh and Fox News like to spin it the other way, but factually speaking there is no historical evidence to suggest that 6th year president's lose their majority (if they have one).
Well, I won't kick too hard today. Just good to see you back writing, and it's good to have some time on my hands to read and write as well.
The Democrats got a whole lot of something out of a whole lot of nothing. Seriously though...I think the American people decided that the Dems' unknown plans still had to be better than what we were seeing with the Republicans. I hope they are right.
The Democrats got big victories with the stem cell question, and to some degree, they got some traction out of their stand on immigration reform. I don't agree that gay marriage is a winning issue for the Democrats and I don't think you can draw that conclusion from the results of this election. Of course the Democrats get a lot of votes for increasing the minimum wage. I generally disagree with the concept, but it's a no-brainer for the average voter.
The House and Senate needed new leadership. Of course I would have preferred that it would be Republican leadership, but maybe this is the way it had to happen. I'm very happy that Chafee is gone, and that we will have new people in charge of the party while we are in the minority.
I agree that the Dems should play nice. If they want to keep their majority, they will make that attempt. But I'm not convinced that they will succeed.
I don't like the Dems controlling the Senate. Forget about judges for a second. What about John Bolton? Will his nomination succeed with Democrats in control? We need Bolton at the UN.
Bush just looks weak right now. If it was right for Rummy to resign Wednesday, it was right 2 or 3 months ago. We could have saved some voters. I don't know whether it would have been enough. The way he did this made him look like he was already surrending to the Democrats, and that he was tired of fighting them. That's a dangerous mindset for a president to have.
Lisa, I gotta disagree that the Dems have no plans or "unkown plans." The Dems have in place as much planning as the 1994 Newt crew did. It wasn't until after the election in '94 that the Republican plans were made more open to the public. Still, what's the Republican plan? Stay the course broke four years ago. You can read some about the Democratic agenda here.
As of right now, I see no need for the Dems to be bi-partisan in anything they do. For at least 6 years now the Republicans have completely ignored the Democratic party and barely included them in committees or hearings. I see no reason for the Dems to play nice at all. I'm probably hinging on crazy by saying that, but it's how I feel presently.
From what I've heard the Bolton nomination is over. In reality it's been over for over a year now. Bolton is not the person we need at the UN, or really anywhere.
But I do agree that Rummy should have left before yesterday. He needed to leave two years ago. One thing good about the change in government is that change in Iraq will be coming. We can't continue on the same path in that country and everyone knows it.
Sorry Kent to be answering comments on your blog. But I'm bored today. And have nothing else to do.
The American people didn't have to know what the Democrats' plans were for the Democrats to win. All they had to be convinced about was that Republican/Bush's plans were NOT working. And they were. I doubt very seriously that casual voters looked at the specific policy proposals of the Democrats. They didn't care about specifics, because they were sure that the Republicans needed to lose.
Look how well those impeachment hearings worked for the Republicans in getting re-elected, and then tell me how smart it would be for the Democrats to try this same tactic. Personally, I don't think they have a case, so if the Democrats want to do all these investigations, I have no problem with it. I think that this would be a stupid strategy for them, and that they should focus on the minimum wage and college tax credits and their great new plan to win in Iraq.
I have lost faith in diplomacy. The UN doesn't seem to be interested in dealing with rogue states, and seems to be even less interested in protecting OUR interests. They see the United States as the enemy and as a threat to the rest of the world. We need a strong voice there. John Bolton, whatever his personal flaws are, seems to fit the bill in that area. I'm open to other suggestions, if there is someone else who could be that kind of representative for us.
The Democrats did not beat the Republicans. They beat themselves.
The public just got tired of all their lies, corruption, arrogant we-are-not-including-others-in-the-discussion attitude and power grab.
Those you put in power presented fake credentials to get themselves in power. They are not Christians nor Conservatives. I knew that before the 2000 election. And if you had taken off your political blinders and paid attention could have known it also.
The public finally realized they had been had.
And also realized things would never get better with them in power but worse.
Republican big whigs need to quit worshipping their god of capitalist greed and turn to the real God and his amnesty plan.
Lisa, I'll make the same argument that the American people knew nothing about the contract with America in 1994 either. They simply wanted change and were mad at Clinton and only had to be convinced that Democratic/Clinton plans were NOT working. I too doubt very seriously that casual voters looked at the specific policy proposals of the Republicans in 1994. They didn't care about specifics, because they were sure that the Democrats needed to lose. It all sounds very similar to me.
I don't recall mentioning anything about impeachment hearings. I said that the Dems shouldn't be bi-partisan and try to cooperate with the Republicans. I see no real reason to play nice. But, again, that's just my current feelings. I do look for major oversight to return to the Congress, however. No more neocon controlled agendas; not at this juncture. Republicans have had over five solid years of unfettered rule. It didn't work; it's time to follow the Constitution and hold the president accountable to it and us.
I agree with you about the UN, I just don't see Bolton as the answer. The guy has absolutely no legitimacy in any diplomatic circles. If anything is paramount in diplomacy it's legitimacy. I can't think of one single accomplishment of his since he's been at the UN. I don't have anything against him personally, he's just not the person for the job.
Fair enough.
You didn't mention impeachment hearings. Unfortunately, it could be a logical progression from all these investigations that are going to take place from all this Democratic oversight. Like I said before, I don't think they are going to find anything incriminating. Oversight is great. People breaking the law should be punished. I just think that the Democrats now have the opportunity to push through some of their agenda, and they shouldn't make investigating Bush their sole focus, or they will miss their opportunity.
And...Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea...these countries have legitimate diplomats willing to negotiate with us? I get your point. But we can't have a diplomat who will sacrifice our interests to achieve a non-binding peace. It hasn't worked in the past, and it won't work in the future.
I don't see impeachment hearings taking place. I do see multiple investigations taking place though. And they should. So many things have not been right in the last 6 years and their time will come. But I do find it odd that Republicans want to complain about needless investigations. Political karma is such a funny thing.
I agree and don't think the Dems should make investigating Bush their sole focus, nor do I believe they will. That's where the Republicans went wrong after 1994. I hope the Dems learned from history. But I do believe that some investigations into Iraq and Big Oil do need to take place. It won't lead to impeachment, though. Bush has two years left and can't run again. I don't see impeachment happening. Accountability, yes. Not impeachment.
Well fortunately for America, the war on terror shouldn't take place at the UN so sacrificing our interests to achieve peace isn't possible at that level. But our ability to still bring our allies along with us will always be at the UN. Bolton has no friends and frankly doesn't want any. Which brings us back to the problems on Sept. 12, 2001. We might be a superpower but we still need backup and legitimacy.
Hi Chris, Lisa and Matt. Thanks for all the comments.
I actually agree with Matt. I don't think the Dems won anything. I thing the GOP didn't offer the American public much of a choice. And after two years of maddening, frustrating inaction, the electorate was ready for a change.
The Senate was lost because of the Gang of 14 agreement. Anytime members of your party give up the Constitutional right to an up or down vote on judicial nominees, you deserve to lose. Bill Frist? His legacy as leader is inaction on everything from Bush nominees, to Social Security reform, to making the tax cuts permanent, and a bunch of other things I can't think of at the moment.
The House was lost because Denny Hastert was as feckless as any leader has ever been. I guess he was too busy eating, getting fat and comfortable, that he didn't act.
What a wasted opportunity, it makes me SICK! The GOP squandered our Majority status and those two guys, Frist and Hastert, are to blame.
Now, we've got to do everything that we can to highlight the differences between the Left and the Right, because apparently the country needs reminding.
Dems won no doubt about it. Let's just call it a mandate.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home