Sorry, am crunching on a deadline and have not got the time for a long post on the elections.
But a) Debra Bowen won, great news;
b) it looks like I may have been right about controversial elections, at least in Virginia – and wrong in that most of them were far enough outside the margin of cheating that there won’t be huge hassles about election results (at least I’m not seeing that now); and
c) The GOP got taken to the woodshed and spanked hard. That’s nominally good news for me, as a Democrat – but a lot depends on what the Democratic leadership does about the war (not just the one in Iraq…). Long posts on all those when I resurface.
Warm congratulations on the success of your side, Armed Liberal. This is a great and consequential Democratic victory, of which your team can be proud.
Yep, it’s a big deal. Now we can finally surrender in Iraq (like Vietnam, Lebannon, Somalia, etc.), which will leave our Afghan allies no reason whatsoever to stick with us and prove that we are, indeed, the decadent “weak horse” which flees when stung.
I’m hoping guys like Webb (if he wins) will prove me wrong.
I shouldn’t be provoking a flame war like this, but I’m not a happy camper. GOP deserved it, no question about it, but that doesn’t mean I’m pleased.
Couple of personal observations/notes:
-I voted almost exclusively against the republican party yesterday for the first time in a long time. My only regret was a wish that Barr-Topinka had lost by only 1 vote so it would have been mine that brought her down. I’ve rarely taken such pleasure in teaching my nominal party a lesson.
-I do feel hopeful that the lesson may be learned. Probably not by this White House, but they werent the ones i have been truly disappointed in domestically. Bush was straight up about his compassionate conservative agenda- it was going to grow the government and cost a lot. Cant fault him for that. But i can fault the Republican Congress for letting him do it- and worse for going above and beyond in pork barrel gluttonly. When they chickened out on the border that tore it for me. Good riddance to cowardly leadership and I hope this hubristic slugs that chased Gingrich and Kasich out suffer under Democratic rules and legislative vengence.
-Notice the difference in reaction to losing between Republicans this year and Democrats in the past. No cries of theft and cheating, no vows to leave the country, no howls of contempt at the process, no conspiracy theories involving obscure voting booth companies. Republicans got beat because they were out of synch with the American public- end of story. They accept that. Democrats _finally_ figured that out to some extent. Just how much we will learn in the next 2 years. If i had to guess right now, in 08 the entire government will be reversed. A Dem takes the WH, Republicans take back the Congress. If a good Scoop Jackson style democrat runs, that might be my ideal brand of Government.
GWOT is the issue.
They still don’t get it.
The Republicans lost, mostly because of their own idiocy as a national party.
The result? Hopefully the GOP will be reinvigorated by this nasty lesson.
Nothin’ but tough love, brotha.
Given that retreat/surrender in Iraq and Afghanistan is a given, how soon before a nuke attack on America?
I’d say odds are within two years.
Dems have nothing to offer but PC nostrums and fuzzy multiculturalism, pandering to terrorists.
It’s very bad.
And GOP and GWB basically sat around.
A majority of American voters does not now exist eager to pay any price and bear any burden for any number of years or decades, to assure the survival and the success of Iraqi democracy.
There is not a settled majority for that position in prospect. Regardless of what America did, I would not expect to see a genuine Iraqi democracy in the next few years, as the culture does not support it. (Whether you think that’s because of Islam, as I do, or whether like Ralph Peters you think the problem is in the geography of the Middle East, in the land itself rather than in religion, or whether you see some other explanation doesn’t matter now.) So only a settled majority in America capable of outlasting the Koran or the physical geography of the Middle East or the other underlying factors inhibiting the growth of democracy in Iraq would be of account.
I do not believe democratic transformation was ever a real option. Since decades of living in established democracies has not made the Muslims of Europe any less hostile – on the contrary, they are becoming more hostile – why was a grand experiment in Iraq or Afghanistan the answer? (For that matter, if electricity or exposure to whiskey and sexy as well as democracy was the solution, it should long since have won the loyalty of the Muslims of Europe.).
But it’s all academic now.
The result of pitting the appeal of democracy against the appeal of jihad has been that Muslims were prepared to keep “voting” for jihad longer than Americans were prepared to keep paying in blood and money to keep an option open for Muslims if they wanted to change their minds. Whether it could ever have been any different is now on a par with wondering whether Vercingetorix could have held out in the Siege of Alesia. He didn’t.
It does no good to wonder what would have happened if the Republican Party had been less corrupt and more deserving of victory. It wasn’t, and it was soundly beaten.
It does no good to wonder what would have happened if Muslim mainstream culture and jihadist zeal had not balked the creation of an Iraqi state on the lines desired by George W. Bush. They did, and it’s a done deal.
We can wish that jihad terror had never received such a stimulus, or that the Muslim world had not turned to nuclear proliferation on Europe’s doorstep, but it will never do us any good.
A culturally familiar (though historically recent) Western European style of democracy has failed relation to Islam and it is on the way out, along with the old Europeans themselves, even in Europe,.
The great streams of Muslim demographics, jihadi zeal, nuclear proliferation and oil-funded sponsorship from zealously Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran are growing broader and swifter and and converging. A vastly populous, active, violent wholly unappeasable and pitiless new world, based on Muslim principles and indifferent to national borders except when they favor Islam, is being born.
It is far too late to wonder how these people might have acted had they not called our bluffs over and over with success.
Rational security strategy has to take adequate account of the emerging power and implacable intentions of the Muslim world, rather than looking backward to the failed projects of yesterday.
Since George W. Bush will simply persist in faith in the universal human passion for freedom and in believing in the goodness of the Religion of Peace till his term runs out and the movers arrive, we have to look to the new Democratic legislative leadership for an adequate security strategy based on radically new thinking in our unprecedented situation.
I hope we’re very lucky.
Mark #3:
Does that mean that you didn’t want them to pass the 700-mile border fence bill, or that it didn’t go far enough for you, and you would have wanted them to keep pushing on the bill to make undocumented presence here a felony? Immigration has been a coalition-splitting issue for both parties. Among the Republicans, straight-laced law and order types spar with international business advocates and free traders. Among the Democrats, organized labor spars with one-world, international civil rights activists. It will never be a winning issue for either party in either of their current incarnations.
AL (OP): I think you can take some heart. Much of the incoming Democratic congressional class is substantially more moderate than the leadership that they will, admittedly, put in power. You might even find some kindred spirits among them, which have been in short supply for you recently. The swing to the left of the leadership will be substantial, all the way from Hastert and Boehner to Pelosi and possibly even Murtha. However, the swing to the left of the assembly is not nearly so pronounced. Pelosi will have to rely as much or more on the fact that many of the freshmen already owe her favors than on true ideological allegiance to move leftist legislation forward. Many of those freshmen Democrats from red states are already going to be thinking about their reelection in two years, when Speaker Pelosi will have a much higher profile than Minority Leader Pelosi does today, and they will need to make real decisions about how closely they want to be tied to her as campaign season revs up in 2008.
Pelosi, to her credit, already seems to understand this. The two specific issues she’s come forward with thus far have been a stringent ethics package and a mild minimum wage increase. She has signaled that she will use her influence to contain Conyers’ thinly-veiled desire to file articles of impeachment against the president, which she is shrewd enough to know will probably work even less well for Democrats now than they did for the Republicans against Clinton.
When making predictions, it’s best to cover oneself by putting out more than one option.
I think one of two things will happen to the War on Terror:
1) Retreat. This emboldens our enemies, panics Islamic moderates who were hoping we would stick things out, and all hell breaks loose. Look for the retreat to be indirect- ie, congress won’t tell the troops to withdraw, they’ll just not approve funding needed for operations. Islamic hotheads are finally convinced of the truth- America can be defeated. Now certain of victory, with their morale recovering, and with the vital overseas “first line” stripped, they can take the fight back to our shores again.
2) WOT gets used as lever. Dems produce bills funding Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, but attach all kinds of provisions and riders. Republicans caught- abandon WOT, or approve pork they couldn’t have dreamed if they tried. They go with the latter. Overseas, things continue on for a while in the current trend. Dems tell their constituents that it only looks the same, but in reality, its now very different, because now there is “Oversight”.** THe logic is, it’s all OK now, because now its US doing it and not Bush, and we’ve got oversight. Their constituents buy it.
Ben
**Oversight: A government process in which things are Overlooked. In the field, this will mean a 3 week process of approvals in between a Request for Fire and a cannon actually letting loose.
#3 Mark;
I’d also like to point out that Webb and Tester, who seem to have won their races but by a slim margin, are not violently opposed to recounts….and I would also caution you about drawing premature conclusions regarding Allen’s (or other losing Republican’s) behavior in the weeks ahead.
Also, do Jim’s crazy comments (or is it Crazy Jim’s comments?) count against your side?
Furthermore, I don’t think that Armed Liberal could have been more wrong in his prescriptions for a Democratic resurgence; I therefore don’t expect much insight into the outcome from him in the future, except to predict that he will certainly try to frame it as support for his ideology somehow, like the ridiculous PR campaign already being launched by the losing Republicans that yesterday was a victory for “conservatism”!
LMAO.
Of course he might prove me wrong and accept defeat honorably like a “good Republican”…
CNN reporting that Rumsfeld is out.
Incredible really. Does anyone think we’d be talking about a two house loss if this had been announced 72 hours ago?
And at this point, who on earth would want the job?
#10
Seems like a necessary political move. This will allow the WH to claim that improvements in Iraq (if any!) are the result of the new SecDef rather than Dems taking over congress leading up to the 2008 elections.
Of course that is how this war has been run from day one.
Um, isn’t it more likely that improvements in Iraq would be due to a new SecDef rather than a new Speaker?
(Not that I think either one will have too much direct influence either way other than by pulling out)
Rummy out, well we may have a chance in Iraq now.
Bob Gates in- former CIA man. Well so much for that. Why in god’s name is this Administration so insistant on keeping anyone with actual military experience out of the decision making loop? What has the CIA done _in its history_ to suggest anyone who ran that dungeon is qualified to be sec-def? Ughh. I give up.
_I’d also like to point out that Webb and Tester, who seem to have won their races but by a slim margin, are not violently opposed to recounts_
1.I’d be careful of your language- violence?
2.They arent opposed because the recounts are automatic.
3.Bush was never opposed to recounts mandated by law- only those mandated by democratic judges for nebulous reasons (actually the reasons are very obvious).
4.You dont see Allen or Burns lobbying judges to keep booths open later in Republican areas, or recount in selective republican districts _only._ Or trying to smoother the military vote.
Why the Bush Admin continues to put forth these “cold warrior” types who continue to not “get it” is beyond my comprehension and yet it explains exactly why the GOP lost this election.
Democrats were not the only winners yesterday, illegal immigrants and terrorists got big wins for their sides as well.
Mabye I’m just not in tune with the “American public” but for me the prosecution of the GWOT seems to be a no brainer, I understand why we are at war in Iraq and other areas, and I understand the need for sacrafice, I’ve done it myself. But a large portion of the American public are soft and unwilling to give on behalf of their countries security. I pray there is never a day where we must really truly fight for our survival at home because given the electorates choices, we would lose that war as well.
The Vietnam era liberals have won another war for the other side. Way to go.
_Does that mean that you didn’t want them to pass the 700-mile border fence bill, or that it didn’t go far enough for you, and you would have wanted them to keep pushing on the bill to make undocumented presence here a felony?_
It’s a complete, total, obvious no-brainer that we need a wall that extends the length of the border. Republicans control both houses and the presidency- they could have passed that law. I don’t give a crap about whether we give amnesty, or guest worker visas, or just toss everybody out. All I care about is keeping some Al Qaeda jerkoff from carrying a dirty bomb into Houston. Republicans failed at their mandate to protect this nation in that respect. The 700 miles fence isnt even likely to be built if you follow the inside baseball on the matter. The whole thing is a grisly joke- and if a terrorist _does_ sneak over the border it will rightly be the guys that had their hands on the tiller that get blamed for it.
Not in VA. It’s close enough that if one was requested the state would pay for it, but there are not automatic recounts in VA.
_ It’s close enough that if one was requested the state would pay for it, but there are not automatic recounts in VA._
Thats not my understanding based on what the networks were saying, but of course i could be wrong. Regardless, of course if you have the legal right to request a recount you will request one when the vote is that close. Webb would certainly have done so- and i wouldnt blame him. The issue isnt pursuing all the normal election protocols, it is getting a judge to amend those protocols after the fact in ways particular to one candidate.
Aahhhh!
For once, I get to bask in the rosy, satisfied, glow, of knowing I have personally voted for the 1st woman Speaker of the House.
Yes, it’s good to have some small participation in some great U.S. history.
Course, it’s only a momentary pleasure.
The other big news, of course, is as mentioned above, Rumsfeld is gone.
I just want my Dems to be tough, flexible and smart, make frieds and allies when possible, confront enemies when necessary, for the security of the country.
I hope Jim Webb is listened to a lot on the military side – brave guy, super-smart, has now been on the Republican and Democratic side.
Armed Liberal – I look forward to your more extended comments.
Several of the above posts express enormous pessimism about relations with the Islamic world. I don’t want to minimize the gravity of what retreat from Iraq and Afghanistan would entail, but one question ought to be asked if we are going to contemplate worst-case scenarios.
If radicals actually detonate a nuclear device in an American city, (a) any American President will be impeached if the United States doesn’t respond with a violent attack against suspect states, and (b) we will then be in danger of repeating the pattern of the last six years, only on a much larger scale.
Should we be thinking *now* about what we should do after an American city gets nuked, or should we postpone such thinking until after the attack, at which time we will be filled with rage and desperate to lash out?
You are a democrat?
talboito: direct address to a person or post # would keep readers from wondering who you are trying to ask.
I was really worried when I came home from working the polls and found McPherson leading by ten percent.
I was *enormously* relieved when, by the time I’d gone to bed, Bowen had squeaked out a 30,000 vote lead.
I’m very pleased to see it expanded to almost 200,000 votes this morning.
Bowen was the one California race I really cared about, and I’m thrilled to see her have pulled it out.
Mark: i think the Democrats have a good landscape for the Senate in 2008. The House is touchier, and it really depends on how the Democrats perform over the next two years. Which is as it should be. The new Democratic majority is on probation.
Davebo: the advantage to Rumsfeld going now instead of later is that it allows the lame-duck Senate to confirm his replacement.
Nothing will change with respect to foreign policy.
And Gates won’t give the Army back its Crusader pork.
Sorry if you thought otherwise.
Hear hear for Deb!!
I’m happy that the GOP will lose power, but not so pleased about Pelosi and Reed being leaders. Would prefer to have a double changing of the guard.
Here’s to hoping something happens there before January…
Reading over some of these comments, I’m afraid the Democratic triumph has an ideological dimension that will outlast its political victory. Its political ascendancy in the House will not be long for this world if people like Pelosi and Dean have anything to say about it, and this does not make a Democratic president in 2008 any more likely. But they have infected us with some of their damaging ideas.
It is not the purpose of our democratic republic to reward or punish political parties for their behavior. Or to punish the entire country by voting for a Time of Tribulation. Jeremiah only prophesied trouble for Jerusalem, he didn’t openly advocate handing it over to Nebuchadnezzar.
I agree that we can hand out a lot of well-deserved blame. To Bush, for starters, who has never been quite the man we needed him to be. When they called Reagan an idiot and a warmonger, he kicked their asses so far into the fever swamp that it took them ten years to crawl out again. Bush has been content to play the punching bag.
But I think the real failure starts right here with us, the volunteer pundits and citizen so-called journalists who were born on 9/11. We missed our opportunity to transcend shallow politics, and defeat the idea that the universe is a metaphysical struggle between Republicans and Democrats.
Fortunately all is not lost, and if this helps us to realize it then it might me the best thing that could have happened in the long run.
I should add: there is much talk about a more conservative Democratic party emerging from this election. I don’t see any new Democrats worthy of filling the shoes of Sam Nunn or DP Moynihan, but I say we give them a chance. There’s no way they’re going to squelch the Kossack left – on the contrary, they will face savage attacks from that quarter – but if they hold true to their promise they might help forge a new bipartisan alliance.
The great danger for the Democrats at this point, I think, is that these new moderates are going to become the favorite targets of the left.
Yeah, AL, just great. It’ll seem even better when Alcee Hastings assumes chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committe. By the way, if you decide to invite him over to celebrate, don’t assume that just because the Dems are stupid enough to trust him with sensitive national security info it would be ok to leave him alone for even a minute with anything that’s a) valuable and b) not nailed down.
Any vote for a Democrat was a vote to put Hastings in a postion to do harm to our country. That’s the sort of change the Dems can offer — that and a change in the country’s direction . . . from a strong economy with sustainable, low-inflation growth, to a stagnation resulting from acting on the mistaken belief that our free market economy will be improved by their “fine-tuning” by means of redistributionist tax policies . . . not to mention a change from a nation that has not suffered a terrorist attack on its soil since 9/11/01 to one in which our enemies no longer have to fear that we might eavesdrop on them or detain them as though they were, well, enemies . . . a change from Congressional leadership that considers seeking international cooperation in tracking SWIFT transfers by or for our enemies to be not just ok, but mandatory, to
Congressional leadership that considers such programs as nothing more than an opportunity to frustrate the policies the oppposing party seeks to carry out in order to protect national security — just because they think that anything that hurts the political opposition is good and justified, even if it also hurts their fellow citizens.
Glen seems taller today.
Ideas have consequences. People who run for office on strengthening the military, returning the party to its Truman roots, and developing a plan to win in Iraq, can and should be expected to follow through or face the same consequences as the Republicans.
I would have wagered that the odds of Rumsfeld leaving were less than Hastings actually assuming the intelligence chair. I’ll wait and see.
On a day when a communist and his supporters who lost power in large part because of Ronald Reagan’s efforts regain power in Nicaragua, said communist’s de facto supporters on the north side of the Rio Grande are now leading the majority party in the US House of Representatives. The Republicans aren’t blameless in the failure to keep Nicaraguan communism dead and buried, but the Dems might consider the return of Daniel Ortega as they recall their own eagerness to canonize the likes of Hugo Chavez’ gf Cindy Sheehan. Somehow, I don’t think the new leadership in the House will approve funding to restart the contra program.
How the new democratic majority functions is going to be the fascinating part of this whole affair. Pelosi and her people have basically said that they ‘let’ this new breed of moderate democrats off the leash a bit to get elected, but fully believes they will be back in the fold in no time. That remains to be seen.
The Dems made the vast majority of their gains in places like Indiana, Iowa, and Pennsylvania… very purple states for the most part. How they go will go the party, and there will be some competition to Pelosi from new Blue Dogs like Heath Shuler who arent likely to give a damn about senority or caucus loyalty. If those guys decide to play the ‘gang of 13’ game on issues like border security and tax cuts, there could be full blown Dem civil war. Which could be very healthy for the party in the long run.
I think the newbies will tote the line for a while… until it becomes clear the House leadership is dragging them into the idealogical mud which is bound to drown them come 08. Thats when i expect to see some sort of coup. If not in fact at least in rhetoric. Bush should be rolling out the welcome mat for the 06 rookie class- they could save his presidency.
Only problem with your logic, PD, is that it relies on irrational voters. I wouldn’t mortgage the house for any bets.
How you typed “developing a plan to win in Iraq” without keeling over in a fit of laughter I’ve no idea. This has been kicked around since atleast 2004 and I still can’t think of a single change suggested. There’s been plenty of nostrums like “new vision”, “change of course”, “different leadership”, etc. Quite a few too whose prime requirement is development of a time machine but substantive, proactive changes? Nope. Sorry. None come to mind.
bq. Glen #27: But I think the real failure starts right here with us, the volunteer pundits and citizen so-called journalists who were born on 9/11. We missed our opportunity to transcend shallow politics, and defeat the idea that the universe is a metaphysical struggle between Republicans and Democrats.
Hear, hear.
I hope that a significant number of people take the lesson from this election that we need more civility and honest discussion, and less demonization and culture-war vitriol.
Will we see a decrease in the number of conservatives who like to herald the Democrats as eager to hand Israel over to Iran and get America nuked?
Perhaps a willingness among progressives to open their eyes to the very real anti-progressive cultural problems in the middle east, instead of claiming it all to be a conspiracy to start a new war?
I’m hoping, but I’m not holding my breath on either count.
Well, how many Americans know who Hastings is? Sure, the Republicans could have made a bigger deal out of it, but I’m not sure it would have mattered and he would have been taken off the table if the issue gained traction.
I agree with Mark (#33, but not with his poor selection of corrupt gubernatorial candidates), it will be interesting to watch. I think Hastings is the first issue.
Halcyon, you’re right that we need to accept the presumption of the other side’s good faith, but it’s not unreasonable to insist that the presumption may be rebutted by the other side’s taking positions that objectively suggest something other than good faith. Of course no one really thinks that Democrats want the US to be nuked (undoubtedly there are a few — a small minority probably — who would be willing to sacrifice Israel to acheive, Chamberlain-like, “peace in our time,” and although they probably outnumber the Republicans who would do the same, the Dems don’t have a monopoly on such views). So, if a Democrat who would represent the people, whether of a district, the state or the nation, says that he favors a strong national defense, and then suggests that NSA not be permitted to to conduct a program that involves some monitoring of international communications in order to gather intelligence on suspected terrorists, I begin to think that his statement regarding a strong defense remains, at that point unsupported. And if it continues to be a bald assertion of his presumed good faith on the issue of defending his fellow citizens, then I am not unreasonable if I consider the presumption weakened and, eventually, rebutted. That’s where some of the Democrats are on national security after having acted opportunistically and apparently against the nation’s interest in connection with leaked national security programs. It is a legitimate purpose to ensure against abuse of power by an executive, but unlike the good faith of each party to the American political discussion, accusations of the President’s abuse of his power or bad faith acts are not to be presumed. Assertions of such abuse or presidential bad faith, when they continue unsupported, suggest not good faith on the part of the one making the assertion, but the elevation of partisan or self-interest above the national interest — and that is a disqualification for national leadership.
Folks, here’s a very short version of my thinking (which is wooly as usual…). Bush couldn’t or wouldn’t build or maintain enough of a coalition to confront the issues we’re facing. He was a party to a partisan kulturkampf on the R side of the fence that saw his acendency as a chance to tap the old pork barrel, and he and his folks saw winning that war – the political one – as being more important than uniting the country to face the outward threat.
So now he’s got a boot to the butt and the D’s have to figure out how to do things. Yes, I know all about Alcee Hastings – I live in Harman’s district, it’s a big deal to me.
But the Democratic Party is going to have to mature a lot now that it has the keys. That’s not going to happen overnight, and I worry about whether it will happen fast enough.
But it will get mature in time, or events will mature it. We need both parties to run the government; now we haveto see if both parties can grow up.
A.L.
AL
#38
Wooly doesn’t describe your lack of thinking on this issue. I must admit, I’m really shocked and disappointed at this comment!
Actually, I find it totally incomprehensible!
Harman? Here’s a politician I really want to have a real world input on today’s geopolitics.
Blackfive just posted on a San Francisco liberal scenario which I find most indicative of what the national Donks want to initiate.
Mike
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/11/save_jrotc_in_s.html
So Andy how are my comments in the least crazy?
There are now ten nuclear powers (US, UK, Russia, China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran). Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Saudi Arabia have publicly announced their own weapons programs. Jordan and UAE are believed to have started them without public declarations. Turkey is likely to join also.
Within a few years we can have 17 nuclear powers. SEVENTEEN. A process that could not have happened btw without active assistance by Russia and China over more than a decade and a half (drawing back to the first Yeltsin Years under Clinton). And a bipartisan failure to attach consequences (basically bombing the bejabbers out of aspiring nuke club members into regime change) by using US military force. Or we could “talk” which amounts to the US being “OK” with enemies possessing nukes.
Are you willing to trust your continued existence or that of say, Dallas to the good will and altruism of the Egyptians? The Pakistanis (if Al Qaeda stages a coup?) How about Algeria?
We will once we withdraw demonstrated we cannot be trusted as an ally and there is nothing to really fear from us as enemies. Bin Laden said so, and Sheik Nasrallah just the other day said so (you might remember him, his Hezbollah murdered nearly 300 Marines in Beirut, about 400 Jews in Buenos Aires [Argentina has directly charged Hezbollah and Iranian leaders with the crime]).
How on earth can running away from Iraq do anything but get us nuked with 17 nuclear powers, most of them unstable Muslim jihadi cesspits?
I’d suggest your refusal to look reality in the face speaks poorly of your perception of reality. GWB could be gone tomorrow, resigned or impeached, and this problem of nukes in the hands of men like bin Laden would still remain. Unless you trust to the good will and mercy of bin Laden and men like him.
If so you are a fool. A condition that applies to most of the Democratic Party.
Gates? A disaster. Running the Soviet Bureau he failed to predict the 1991 Coup and Collapse of the USSR. Was involved up to his ass in Iran / Contra (a disaster in that it encouraged Iranian aggression for the irrelevant sideshow of the Contras). How that fool compared to Rummy is a plus I’m damned if I know.
Very likely the American Public has decided Iraq is not worth it, but that not being worth it is the function of the Iraqis and Muslims in general not being worth it. The other side of the coin may be that “rubble does not make trouble” and the American public would demand summary nuking of any threatening nation like Iran or North Korea or Pakistan and not care at all about the aftermath. I did not see any wholesale endorsement of the Dem position that would should just talk/apologize for our existence to our enemies. Merely writing off the entire Muslim world as enemies of all that’s decent. [To GWB credit he at least TRIED to forestall this, however ineptly]
Pelosi? Stands with Reno and Albright as black marks against women leaders. [If you believe Freeh and the late John O’Neil are right in saying Albright deliberately obstructed the Khobar Towers and Cole investigations for political fears of having to do something about it] Just for laughs imagine Pelosi supporting killing bin Laden or ANYTHING other than touch-feely crying jags.
Halcyon — the Dem Congressman from Minnesota, Keith Ellison, first Muslim Congressman, openly supports Hezbollah (as do Rangel and Conyers). Kos supporters of Lamont want to end US support for Israel. Kos supported on his site the Iranian Holocaust cartoon contest. The anti-semitism and bigotry among African Americans is at least as large as the anti-black racism in the 1960’s. That’s the dirty little secret of the Democratic Party. Well one. The other is the Party’s reliance on big business and gazillionaires, while the Reps rely more on small donors.
AL — since the pressing issues are how we respond to threatening nuclear attacks and Dems are opposed to the very existence of the military, how on earth will they “grow” ?
Mike Daley, at the risk of hijacking the thread, I have a suggestion for you. You start pressuring your side to end the ban on gays in the military, and then I’ll write the SF School Board to save JROTC. (That, AFAICT, is the issue for most San Franciscans, not some extremist hatred of the military.)
Given that a recent newspaper story on JROTC in one school in SF said that the head cadet—I’m so unmilitary I forget the correct title—was gay. I suppose he could have stayed in the closet, but in 2006 SF that would be, well, unusual. Wouldn’t it be demoralizing if all the younger kids he helped train went on to ROTC, etc. and he had to drop out?
#38 from Armed Liberal: “Folks, here’s a very short version of my thinking (which is wooly as usual…). Bush couldn’t or wouldn’t build or maintain enough of a coalition to confront the issues we’re facing. He was a party to a partisan kulturkampf on the R side of the fence that saw his acendency as a chance to tap the old pork barrel, and he and his folks saw winning that war – the political one – as being more important than uniting the country to face the outward threat.”
I find your comment confusing, confused, or both.
* What are these issues we’re facing?
* What is “confronting”? Is it like solving the problem, or like making a gesture, or what?
* What coalition would have been enough?
* Could you disentangle the claim that he “was a party to a partisan kulturkampf on the R side of the fence that saw his acendency as a chance to tap the old pork barrel”? It’s partisan (Democrat vs. Republican) or it’s within the Republicans; it’s about a culture war or it’s about getting at the pork barrel (very different motives)? Who are George W. Bush’s folks – are they conservatives at large or in the Republican Party generally or is this about his old buddies like Miers and Gonzales or is it his appointees such as Rumsfeld or what? It’s about what political war (since you leave this utterly confused) instead of the war against an external foe (which you do not identify)?? Is it the kulturkampf itself that saw him as a chance to grab the goodies? That is literally what you said – but it makes no sense.
I can tell you’re saying negative things and assuming bad faith, but that is about it.
More importantly, could you cash out what you see as the implications now?
Your view of what happened over the past six years is so confusing and so surprising for me, I can’t even tell what fields you think have already been plowed, and where the fresh pastures are.
If you think George W. Bush has been phony and perhaps unwilling to do things like push democratic transformation, do you see an opportunity now for the Democratic Party to start trying to do what the Republican party has never tried to do, such as promoting democracy in the Middle East? If you think Donald Rumsfeld never genuinely attempted a military transformation (perhaps he too was just a pawn of the ingenious pork barrel seeking kulturkampf?) is there an open door for the Democrats to be the first to attempt a military transformation? Or what?
David – no, I think now (as I’ve said pretty much since 2003) that Bush was failing to sell the fact that we’re at war, and that that failure to sell would have serious negative consequences. The biggest job of the President is to shape national opinion. How’d he do?
Part of why he failed is the situation, but another part was his decision to work his base – financially, culturally, and politically – rather than acknowledge tha tthis issue was bigger than D’s and R’s. Yes, the Democrats have layed hardball too – maybe harder ball – but Bush had a choice to make – the Republican social and political project or bipartisan support for the war. Hethought he could have both, and was wrong.
A.L.
Re: #38 from Armed Liberal – but if you were just drinking to the very good health of the victorious Democrats: Cheers!!
Truly, this was a very resounding victory, and I would not be half-hearted about celebrating if it was my team that had won so convincingly. (grin)
I’d like to see the ban on gays in the military lifted because: A) its indefensibly stupid, and B) there isnt a shred of doubt in my mind the ivory tower universities will find an even more dubious excuse to dis the military recruiters. That plays to both my sense of fair play and making people show their true colors.
#43 from Armed Liberal: “The biggest job of the President is to shape national opinion. How’d he do?”
Straight questions deserve straight answers.
Bob Woodward, Bush At War, page 30:
Bush wanted to give a speech that night to the nation on television, and his chief speechwriter, Michael Gerson, had come up with a draft. It included the sentences, “This is not just an act of terrorism. It is an act of war.” This reflected what Bush had been saying all day to the NSC and his staff.
Take it out, Bush instructed Karen Hughes. “Our mission is reassurance.” He wanted to calm already jumpy nerves.
“I did not want to add to the angst of the American people yet,” Bush said later.”
By deciding that it was his job to pacify the American people and not to mobilize them, I think George W. Bush blew it then, and he continued to blow it through “go shopping” and the “religion of peace” and so onward from the first day till now.
Is that a clear answer?
Oh, and “then” of course was 11 September, 2001.
Now I get to ask a question, I think.
#43 from Armed Liberal: “Part of why he failed is the situation, but another part was his decision to work his base – financially, culturally, and politically – rather than acknowledge tha tthis issue was bigger than D’s and R’s. Yes, the Democrats have layed hardball too – maybe harder ball – but Bush had a choice to make – the Republican social and political project or bipartisan support for the war. Hethought he could have both, and was wrong.
A.L.”
Since this is your perception of recent history, what policy implications do you draw from it? How does this cash out in fighting the war tomorrow?
But feel free to put off answering till you have celebrated thoroughly. I would. 🙂 Champaign days like these don’t come often.
Actually, I’d just like AL to explain why he thinks he has any credibility left when it comes to being a pundit about politics or the military.
Seems to me that:
– AL broke with his party over Iraq. He’s been a huge cheerleader for the war and for Bush, usually dismissing any apparent errors in the prosecution of the war as run-of-the-mill mistakes that get made in war. Even in this very thread, he’s said Bush’s problem wasn’t making mistakes, but not selling the war hard enough. And yet, we’re at a point in Iraq where even Max Boot is saying the war is pretty much unwinnable, and there’s at least some evidence that the rest of the country felt the same way in the voting booth.
– AL’s been trashing the party on conservative blogs such as this one for a good long while now… although always with the caveat that he was making his criticisms for the good of the party. Still, near as I can tell, the conservatives here just used the slams against the Dems as a jumping off point to trash the Dems even more, while most actual Democrats either ignored the “advice,” or like Kevin Drum, blew it off entirely.
– AL was so sure of himself that last year he was offering to make bets that the Dems would, at most, pick up one or two seats in Congress this cycle. And yet, here we are on the far side of a fairly historic shift of power, where Democrats pretty much stayed the course as far as their approach to winning elections, ignored the changes AL said they had to make, and won convincingly.
That being the case, I’m genuinely curious, AL – are you gonna admit you were wrong and start moving back toward the mainstream Democrats? (I’m not holding my breath.) Are you gonna continue to pretend you’re a liberal, even as you continue to prop up the corpse of the Bush doctrine? Or are you just gonna start wandering in the political wilderness, insisting to anybody that’ll listen that you understand how things really work unlike those other liberals, and that the way to electoral victory is better sewers?
David, a Woodward quote? Maybe Bush really said that, but it’s a better than even bet that Woodward made it up.
I hope it doesn’t take another catastrophic terrorist attack on US soil, or perhaps a panicked crowd reaching for the last helicopter leaving the roof of the US embassy in Bagdad, to make you realize that the price to be paid for giving the Dems’ the opportunity for self-congratulation (kind of like “We killed the Patriot Act!” — Harry Reid) might not be worth it.
That’s not to suggest that the Republicans should be excused — after all, American voters kicked them out even though the Democrats, given a chance to act responsibly as an opposition party, instead demonstrated their contempt for the nation’s well-being.
Clearly some sort of change is required. But this is frying pan to fire.
My own view is that the American political system is on a likely irreversible downward spiral.
While it’s ultimately the voters’ responsibility to rescue the system by electing statesmen rather than politicians, the politicians have for so many years corrupted the system so that although a statesman may from time to time be elected, the rescue requires many statesmen — those who are willing to sacrifice their own opportunity for re-election for the sake of the health of American democracy. Instead, we have a Congress that is filled with self-promoters who cannot distinguish between their reelecton prospects and the best interest of the nation.
The main culprit is the gerrymander, which permits Congressmen to select their constituents, more or less, by enlisting the help of equally self-interested state legislators. The result is the extreme polarization we see today and ultimately the weakening of the legislative branch (when was the last time a good idea originated in Congress and actually became policy?)
About the only way I can imagine something being done is if a president takes the issue directly to the people and the stars line up to permit a groundswell of demand for a national referendum on the issue (but the networks don’t even carry most presidential speeches anymore, so who would hear?). It has to be a constitutional amendment, but if the legislative process at either the state or federal level is involved — well, that’s a bit like letting the fox guard the henhouse.
#48 from FormerDem: “David, a Woodward quote? Maybe Bush really said that, but it’s a better than even bet that Woodward made it up.”
OK, I deserve that for quoting Bob Woodward, but it was very off-putting that in his first speech George W. Bush was “reassuringly” bland. That was not what people who wanted to be reassured that we were going to fight back needed to hear. Right then, George W. Bush opted for tranquilizing the American public over mobilizing it for war. And he went on in the same spirit.
Though I think George W. Bush is a fine man and a great president who has done a lot of things right, if someone asks me, “did he shape public opinion in the right way?” I have to say “no, and here’s where he went wrong.”
It had nothing to do with a sinister conspiracy, or a “kulturkampf” or partisanship or anything like that. It was just a decision made for the public good in an unexpected crisis – a decision George W. Bush thought was right and I think was second best.
I don’t think there are any lessons to be learned from that about what to do next in the global jihad wars.
#48 from FormerDem: “I hope it doesn’t take another catastrophic terrorist attack on US soil, or perhaps a panicked crowd reaching for the last helicopter leaving the roof of the US embassy in Bagdad, to make you realize that the price to be paid for giving the Dems’ the opportunity for self-congratulation (kind of like “We killed the Patriot Act!” — Harry Reid) might not be worth it.”
I don’t care about that.
I love to reach a friendly hand across divides. Why not? I know Armed Liberal doesn’t underestimate the extent of our differences, because I have told him what they are. So there’s no risk of a misunderstanding.
I agree that the American political system is being poisoned by gerrymandering. I think McCain-Feingold is flawed too, and I think you should experiment with compulsory preferential voting, as in Australia.
I think we should experiment with optional voting, American style. All our politicians are getting way too good at exploiting the details of the electoral systems we are used to.
But that takes nothing away from this brilliant Democratic victory. Rather, that it was accomplished despite gerrymandering highlights how great the Democrats’ achievement was.
Everybody grab your gonads and hold on. It’s going to be a hell of a ride. Why?
Most of the Democrats whom won live in the NE, Rust Belt or heartland E of the Mississippi. They took R seats held by hard right to moderate R’s whom were in love w/ the political bacon they brought home while holding their nose at the antics of the party machinery to use the the evangelical fanatics-anyone notice the rise of the hard christian right parallels the rise of the Taliban- to support extreme pro business legislation(don’t anyone start just think of no competetive bids or lack of bulk purchasing programs for drugs in America. Why do you think Wal-Mart is so cheap because they buy two items and then restock? Hell no they buy in bulk). But what was worse is the fact despite producing JOBS the income of the vast majority of people declined in both real and nominal terms for a variety of real economic reasons while corporate income and profits(which is why you go into business) skyrocketed in those same terms.(for all the people whom are going to flame me over the CPI and PPI, just pull out your on line bills for you utilities, medical costs, insurance, food and the cost of an education and then look at your income. These are the comparsions a family makes).
They then allowed their hand to be overplayed(Calling Dr. Frist; Mrs. Schiavo moved) on a variety of issues they claimed exclusivity to: Responsiblity, Accountablity, Heterosexual mores and Good Government, i.e. Iraq, political corruption(calling Ney, DeLay and Weldon), the Foley page scandals and or beating the crap out of your mistress a la Sherwood and last but not least the response across the board to the Gulf Coast hurricanes(his brother wouldn’t even let FEMA in FLA). It all added up in the end in these areas to the feeling of being represented by the law firm Dewey, Cheatem and Howe.
A special note needs to be added here as to religion. If you travel the towns of PA, Ohio and Indiana you do not have the southern/western metro-suburban sprawls w/ vast physical disconnects between your neighbors and work. As a consquence there is not the rise of the large mega nondemoninatinal church. Much of this is because the people whom settled these areas were perscuted for religious reasons back in Europe. As a result the churches are defined denominations where families have gone for numbers of generations. There members serve with one another on the volunteer fire department, the Boy and Girl Scouts troops, Elks, Veteran Lodges, Knights of Columbus et al.
The result of this, is that decisons social and otherwise are made under the banner of family first whether it is shared joy or suffering. This means decisions like abortions, ending ones life because of intense pain and suffering are quiet family matters. They are often spoken ofas; did you hear ____ passed. He suffered for so long. HOPEFULLY now Mary can go on and live a little.
The mega churches are remote from this too often. They are the result of urban people wishing to retain the values of the land, the rodina. The allegiance is to the church or the adored pastor(Haggerty) not to the fact of what the world brings you. This is the base Rove exploited for corporate ends. Even they, in the end, could no longer stomach it and realized they were betrayed. They could add and could not understand if you control both houses and the Presidency why votes were not held on their issues. And they know if they return to their homes and churches and still not want to recognize homosexuals, abortions, stem cell research they can do so.
Given this is where these new Democrat house members live, these will be the values and ideas they bring to the house. The righteousness of the so-called Cali liberal Bo-bo left(and which is a figment of the imagination) that has suffered in one of the lower levels of Bush’s Hell because they opposed Bush from the beginning is not their issue. They are coming to find way’s of increasing the take home pay of their constituents, have their children educated to continue the goal of a better income, have the government come in w/ a response to real natural disasters(guess what real estate speculators you build on the hurricane coasts Uncle Sugar ain’t going to bail you out nor your insurance companies), return the solutions to problems to moderation.
As to foreign policy and military affairs w/ people like Webb, Sestak, Graham-sorry wrong party, Biden, Snowe and Lugar on committee’s I think much more will be done to improve our image and ability to maneuver in the world(I’ve no illusions about most of Western Europe’s inability to provide a mailed fist inside the white gloves of diplomacy). One, of the first will be the recogniztion that many of the national-states of Asia and Africa are the result of colonial times. As such they do not provide stable states w/ the ability to resolve disputes internally.
Given these are the values they bring the first acts are likely to be to resolve internal disputes w/in the party. And the winds of change forecast moderation.
Quite an exposition, Robert.
I’ve got one question on which I’d like you to expand further:
“One, of the first will be the recogniztion that many of the national-states of Asia and Africa are the result of colonial times. As such they do not provide stable states w/ the ability to resolve disputes internally.”
Where does that recognition lead you? In other words, if you take it as read that they can’t resolve their disputes internally, what do you do about it? It seems to me there are a range of responses:
1) Leave their conflicts alone. Let those states fall apart so that new, organic borders can arise which might lead to stable states. Hands off, as per Rwanda and (so far) Darfur.
2) Use the UN or other NGO to force a resolution. Permit the so-called international community to violate the sovereignty of post-colonial states in order to provide the resolution that the states themselves cannot. Ex: Yugoslavia.
3) Re-colonize. Let any of the community of rich, stable states who finds the current instability unpalatable shove its way in and create some order. Ex: French efforts in West Africa.
4) Attempt to sponsor internal reforms / negotiations. The hope here is that, even though the states aren’t organic, the internal hostile factions might be able to achieve a workable peace and get along. Ex: The Mindanao region of the Philippines.
In other words, you’re left with exactly the set of options that we’re already using. Right? Does that recognition give you a new tool, or preference any of these solutions over others? Or does it mean we carry on ad hoc as always, but have a new way of talking about it in front of all those committees at the UN and in Congress?
As tough and as brave as the US military is its leaders have yet to show they have the courage to name the enemy. To date Bush was doing it for two weeks last summer when he refered to the danger of “Islamo Fascism”. An irritated word from Daddy and a few more from Prince Bandar and these words were back in the closet. Imagine fighting a world war against “surprise attacks” rather than the Japanese Empire. In effect that is what the US is doing today. How is it possible to win a war against an enemy one is fearful of naming ?
In such a context it is hard to see Bush2 as being less of a pussy than his father…..
Good article on the topic of “Islamofascism” though it won’t make you feel any better about using the term. Intellectually speaking, of course. It still packs quite a punch if your goal is an appeal to emotion.
By the way, even if you couldn’t care less about the word I’d atleast read it for the gem about the German exposition on the rise of fascism in American. Real gut ripper.
Grim
I do not think Bush’s people ever recognized my view, otherwise their approach to Iraq would have been much different. They would not have gone w/ incompetent novices like Bremer whom disbanded the army and purged the petty Baathists(One may not have liked the order and government they provided but they were a functioning governmental elite capable of providing services. They would have certainly been able to hunt down the criminals Saddam let loose from his prisons).
As to which approach to use is always going to be a judgement call which means no new tool but I have a preference. In Iraq I personally would have gone in talking Swiss cantons with UN supervised control of oil and water. I think is for the rest of the countries you are going to have to attempt the same situation. Many in Africa and Asia now contain vast mineral wealth that should be used for the benefit of its population but isn’t period regardless of ethnicity of the ruling political operatives.
The centrifugal forces I fear more than ethnicity are religious. We have seen these forces at work in Nigeria, the phillipines and more importantly the Ivory Coast(hear I think you may be referring to French neo-neo-colonialism?). There the stability broke down as a result of the neighboring nation-states attempting to impose the Sharia on a population that was more tolerant and secular in its approach to religion. Thus forcing out those tolerant ethnic groups into the Ivory Coast where members of their ethnic group creating all sorts of problems in another unstable situation.
One thing I am curious about is whether or not you agree w/ my domestic analysis. Somehow I see you shedding a tear of acknowledgement at my description of small town life. I think you recognize that these new house members are as I described them. I think you are truly wondering if there will be that smack down between them or will the Democrats back in power behave like the Republicans did(I hope the example of Jefferson is the norm and not Delay)
Best to Cassandra
domain, shosting, web design, sever low, bestshosting
domain registration- hosting solutions- webdesign, vietnam domain registration, register, domains,
unlimited web space, clicknhost , low cost, host, windows, bestshosting, tophosting, top hosting, best hosting, vietnam of trading infomation joinstock company