15/11: Two Quick Morning Thoughts
1. The Democrats seem intent on a swift withdrawal from Iraq (I will refrain from calling that "cutting and running" because it makes some people so mad). The key for President Bush has always been to win--and win quickly. In the words of Al Davis: "Just win, baby." Winning takes care of everything. If it is a matter of patience or a minor adjustment, perhaps the next two years holds redemption for the President.
If the tide turns in Iraq in a noticeable way before 2008, the public will repudiate this historic midterm election. They will be asking "who were those guys," and the Democrats will have repeated the Federalist Party's mistake at the Hartford Convention. If not, and we really are in a morass, thank God for the Dems and the restless American electorate.
2. For the GOP, right now, their own leadership contests are much more important than the Democratic leadership canvass. I meant to say this yesterday, and Tocqueville hinted at it this morning. The GOP needs honest and courageous and intelligent leadership. The same-old-same-old is not good enough right now.
If the tide turns in Iraq in a noticeable way before 2008, the public will repudiate this historic midterm election. They will be asking "who were those guys," and the Democrats will have repeated the Federalist Party's mistake at the Hartford Convention. If not, and we really are in a morass, thank God for the Dems and the restless American electorate.
2. For the GOP, right now, their own leadership contests are much more important than the Democratic leadership canvass. I meant to say this yesterday, and Tocqueville hinted at it this morning. The GOP needs honest and courageous and intelligent leadership. The same-old-same-old is not good enough right now.
14/11: More on Newt
A few days ago I noted that Newt Gingrich was busy making a lot of sense, offering ideas and offering himself as a figure around which conservatives might rally. All of these things, by the way, are things that Newt does very well. He is arguably the most under-appreciated figure in the conservative political movement.
Here are some bullet points from his piece in Human Events Online today:
The political problem:
"Republicans, in two short years, gave up the advantages on taxes, balancing the budget and controlling spending that they had spent three generations earning.
"On Katrina, controlling the border and Iraq, Republicans gave up the advantage as the party of management that could get things done -- an advantage they had held since the 1950s."
The political solution:
"[Be more conservative.] We should appeal to the Blue Dog Democrats who claim to be conservative. We should appeal to their voters and their supporters back home. Even more, we should appeal to the majority of the American people by returning the Republican Party, once again, to the party of reform, ideas, solutions and common-sense conservatism.
"We should rebuild the grassroots conservative movement. From the Reagan Revolution of 1980 through the Contract with America in 1994, it was this movement from outside Washington that carried us to the first center-right majority governing coalition in more than 60 years."
Take Heart:
"This was not a realigning election as 1994 was. Voters did not vote "for" the Democrats but "against" Republicans. Now, it will be up to us to see that the results of the 2006 election serve as a temporary but necessary corrective interruption in our goal of getting to a conservative governing majority. Take heart, while there is much to be done, I believe if we are focused, disciplined and we work together, we will Win the Future for America."
An epilogue:
"Just yesterday it was reported that incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is supporting Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) for majority leader. This is a sign that Pelosi, despite all her talk of moving to the center and reaching out to conservatives, will govern from the left. It is a direct assault on the moderate wing of the Democratic Party and a deliberate break with the second-ranking Democrat in the House, Rep. Steny Hoyer (Md.). The next test for whether Pelosi will govern from the left or the center will be if she appoints Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), the impeached former federal judge, to chair the Intelligence Committee. No national security supporter will be comfortable with Hastings' having oversight of the nation's secrets, but the pressure on Pelosi to appease the Black Caucus is immense. Stay tuned."
The article in its entirety here.
As I said earlier, Newt emerged last week as the conservative candidate for 2008. Mitt Romney may have something to say about that--but I am on record as skeptical of Romney's ability to win the Republican nomination this time around. We'll see.
Here are some bullet points from his piece in Human Events Online today:
The political problem:
"Republicans, in two short years, gave up the advantages on taxes, balancing the budget and controlling spending that they had spent three generations earning.
"On Katrina, controlling the border and Iraq, Republicans gave up the advantage as the party of management that could get things done -- an advantage they had held since the 1950s."
The political solution:
"[Be more conservative.] We should appeal to the Blue Dog Democrats who claim to be conservative. We should appeal to their voters and their supporters back home. Even more, we should appeal to the majority of the American people by returning the Republican Party, once again, to the party of reform, ideas, solutions and common-sense conservatism.
"We should rebuild the grassroots conservative movement. From the Reagan Revolution of 1980 through the Contract with America in 1994, it was this movement from outside Washington that carried us to the first center-right majority governing coalition in more than 60 years."
Take Heart:
"This was not a realigning election as 1994 was. Voters did not vote "for" the Democrats but "against" Republicans. Now, it will be up to us to see that the results of the 2006 election serve as a temporary but necessary corrective interruption in our goal of getting to a conservative governing majority. Take heart, while there is much to be done, I believe if we are focused, disciplined and we work together, we will Win the Future for America."
An epilogue:
"Just yesterday it was reported that incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is supporting Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) for majority leader. This is a sign that Pelosi, despite all her talk of moving to the center and reaching out to conservatives, will govern from the left. It is a direct assault on the moderate wing of the Democratic Party and a deliberate break with the second-ranking Democrat in the House, Rep. Steny Hoyer (Md.). The next test for whether Pelosi will govern from the left or the center will be if she appoints Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), the impeached former federal judge, to chair the Intelligence Committee. No national security supporter will be comfortable with Hastings' having oversight of the nation's secrets, but the pressure on Pelosi to appease the Black Caucus is immense. Stay tuned."
The article in its entirety here.
As I said earlier, Newt emerged last week as the conservative candidate for 2008. Mitt Romney may have something to say about that--but I am on record as skeptical of Romney's ability to win the Republican nomination this time around. We'll see.
14/11: "Happy Days are Here Again"
Several of my colleagues in the faculty office building, in response to the historic election, posted signs outside their offices that read: "Happy Days are Here Again." I hope so.
There are some that make a compelling argument that the GOP, long a quite successful loyal opposition party, failed as a ruling party. By the same token, one can make the argument that the Democratic Party failed as a loyal opposition party.
Frankly, if a Democratic Party-controlled Congress means long-term security and prosperity, I am happy for the GOP to maintain a minority status for the next generation. I would gladly surrender power for unity and strength.
Many of us noted that many Democrats suffered from what we laughingly called "BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome)"; that is, no matter what the President said, some automatically responded in a negative and emotional way. Now the worm has turned.
The new reality. The American people have spoken. It is now time for Republicans to model mature behavior and engage the new congressional leadership. It is our duty to accept that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are the duly elected, legitimate voices of the electorate.
We should argue for our principles. We should represent our constituencies. But we should not go out of our way to exaggerate the faults of the opposition. Speaker Pelosi may be a "San Francisco liberal," but she will lead a Congress that is center-right. Her challenge is to represent all the people in a way that reflects a broad consensus. If she does not, we will not need to wait long for our chance to set things right.
In short, let us give the new leadership a chance to articulate their vision. What do they think this past election meant? If they get it right (with our help), we all win. If they have it wrong, if they attempt to misread the mandate, the American people will have another opportunity for correction in two years.
There are some that make a compelling argument that the GOP, long a quite successful loyal opposition party, failed as a ruling party. By the same token, one can make the argument that the Democratic Party failed as a loyal opposition party.
Frankly, if a Democratic Party-controlled Congress means long-term security and prosperity, I am happy for the GOP to maintain a minority status for the next generation. I would gladly surrender power for unity and strength.
Many of us noted that many Democrats suffered from what we laughingly called "BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome)"; that is, no matter what the President said, some automatically responded in a negative and emotional way. Now the worm has turned.
The new reality. The American people have spoken. It is now time for Republicans to model mature behavior and engage the new congressional leadership. It is our duty to accept that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are the duly elected, legitimate voices of the electorate.
We should argue for our principles. We should represent our constituencies. But we should not go out of our way to exaggerate the faults of the opposition. Speaker Pelosi may be a "San Francisco liberal," but she will lead a Congress that is center-right. Her challenge is to represent all the people in a way that reflects a broad consensus. If she does not, we will not need to wait long for our chance to set things right.
In short, let us give the new leadership a chance to articulate their vision. What do they think this past election meant? If they get it right (with our help), we all win. If they have it wrong, if they attempt to misread the mandate, the American people will have another opportunity for correction in two years.
Gateway Pundit has a look at the squeaky clean (sarcasm alert) Democrats now taking control after voters rejected the "culture of corruption.
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
1. Newt Gingrich is making the rounds and, as usual, has a lot of this right. He emerges as the conservative candidate for the 2008 nomination. Assuming Rudy stays out, it looks like a two-man race between Newt and John McCain. Volumes more on that in the next two years.
2. John Bolton. President Bush gave up Don Rumsfeld. If the Democratic leadership is serious about engaging in the new tone of cooperation, they can confirm John Bolton. Or, at the very least, they can resolve to discuss his nomination on the merits of his tenure at the UN as opposed to something he might have said in the 1980s or his alleged propensity to yell at subordinates. See this as 1) a test of good faith on the part of Democrats and 2) the skill of the President in obtaining compromises. Long shot: I predict the President wins Bolton's confirmation.
3. Robert Gates comes in as a DOD secretary as a member of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group. In essence, Gates embodies the new bipartisan direction. Here is a full list of the members:
James A. Baker III
Lee H. Hamilton
Robert M. Gates
Vernon E. Jordan, Jr.
Edwin Meese III
Sandra Day O'Connor
Leon E. Panetta
William J. Perry
Charles S. Robb
Alan K. Simpson
2. John Bolton. President Bush gave up Don Rumsfeld. If the Democratic leadership is serious about engaging in the new tone of cooperation, they can confirm John Bolton. Or, at the very least, they can resolve to discuss his nomination on the merits of his tenure at the UN as opposed to something he might have said in the 1980s or his alleged propensity to yell at subordinates. See this as 1) a test of good faith on the part of Democrats and 2) the skill of the President in obtaining compromises. Long shot: I predict the President wins Bolton's confirmation.
3. Robert Gates comes in as a DOD secretary as a member of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group. In essence, Gates embodies the new bipartisan direction. Here is a full list of the members:
James A. Baker III
Lee H. Hamilton
Robert M. Gates
Vernon E. Jordan, Jr.
Edwin Meese III
Sandra Day O'Connor
Leon E. Panetta
William J. Perry
Charles S. Robb
Alan K. Simpson
A lot of talk on the radio and posting on the blogosphere that the Republicans lost the election because they did not keep faith with their basic values. Voters then punished them for this apostasy. We'll know later perhaps just why the results went the way they did.
I want to bring up the question suggested by the comments referred to above: how do you change the direction of a political party? One way, suggested by pundits today, is that you punish them at the polls. OK. That might or might not work. It is a quick action that can make a person feel good for a time. But, it seems to me that this is the wrong way to go about changing a party, whether that change is a new direction or a return to core values.
The longer, slower, much harder way to influence a party is to work from within the system: join the party, become active in local elections and local committees, network with other likeminded activists who also are burrowing away within the party structure, encourage and work for and contribute to candidates you can support. Pay attention to local boards, especially school boards. Run yourself. Eventually become a county chairperson, or support someone for that position who shares your vision. Pay attention to platforms and their creation. Think of yourself as part of the process, not simply as a voter who may choose to stay home or something to "punish" a party for going astray. Don't think of yourself simply as a consumer, choosing and rejecting products; think of yourself as a producer.
I want to bring up the question suggested by the comments referred to above: how do you change the direction of a political party? One way, suggested by pundits today, is that you punish them at the polls. OK. That might or might not work. It is a quick action that can make a person feel good for a time. But, it seems to me that this is the wrong way to go about changing a party, whether that change is a new direction or a return to core values.
The longer, slower, much harder way to influence a party is to work from within the system: join the party, become active in local elections and local committees, network with other likeminded activists who also are burrowing away within the party structure, encourage and work for and contribute to candidates you can support. Pay attention to local boards, especially school boards. Run yourself. Eventually become a county chairperson, or support someone for that position who shares your vision. Pay attention to platforms and their creation. Think of yourself as part of the process, not simply as a voter who may choose to stay home or something to "punish" a party for going astray. Don't think of yourself simply as a consumer, choosing and rejecting products; think of yourself as a producer.
Gateway Pundit has this material on Libertarians and this election, crediting them with providing the Dem margin of victory in Montana and Missouri.
09/11: Winners & Losers
1. The Cook Political Report. Charlie Cook and his organization are awesome. Right on target once again. Three cheers for Jennifer Duffey and Amy Walter; they were right on the money.
2. Me. I got pretty close on the House and went 8/10 on the Senate (which would be a pretty good batting average in baseball), but I missed the big pick: loss of control in the Upper Chamber. Although I had Virginia as the key race, I had Allen squeaking by. I am still surprised that he lost--granted, I was one of the few surprised by this. (A review of my Senate picks here).
3. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are losers for all their cheerleading in advance of the election--and their sudden about-face "I told you so" recriminations the day after. (For another post on another day: Rush and Sean have it all wrong on immigration and minimum wage.)
4. Karl Rove and the theory of "turnout over persuasion" are losers (a review of my post considering the two schools of campaign strategy here).
5. Joe Lieberman is a big winner (a review of my posts on Joe Lieberman here). (FYI: Kos is a big loser--but not significant enough to merit his own number).
6. Mike DeWine and Jim Talent are major losses for the Senate and the United States. They are statesman of the first rank. So much of politics is timing. It is always a tragedy when good men get swept up in the zeitgeist of an election. Claire McCaskill may prove a great senator; we will wait and see. Sherrod Brown is in the Ted Kennedy-John Kerry class, and he will prove much too liberal for Ohio.
7. Comprehensive Immigration Reform and Minimum Wage win (see this post for a review of those issues as campaign levers). The Democrats wrecklessly gambled minimum wage on the election, which was risky, but they got away with it. Good for us. More on immigration and minimum wage as the debate unfolds.
8. The conspiracy theorists who assured us that diabolical Republican forces would rig the election through electronic voting machines lose again; my prediction: they are beat but not broken. They are silenced for now--but will be back soon.
9. The biggest loss in my book, however, is the Senate. I really hate to see the Senate turn over. I am happy that the GOP lost the House; we deserved to lose the House; the country is better off for the GOP losing the House. The Senate is a different story. The Upper Chamber is the more dignified body; the council of wise men. The "saucer that cools the fiery hot liquid of democratic-representative government." The Republicans are great at running the Senate.
More to the point, I hate to see the Republicans lose control of the Judiciary Committee. The Democratically controlled Judiciary Committee gave us the Robert Bork hearings and Anita Hill and the ultra-politicization of the judicial branch (not that the GOP did not return fire during the Clinton administration). But this all started when the Democrats won the Senate in 1986 and decided to teach Ronald Reagan and conservatives a lesson.
The change in chairmanship from Arlen Specter to Patrick Leahy is not a plus. We will see if the claims of a new tone and the end of partisanship are for real, but I have my doubts. One other thing: I trust Joe Biden as chairman of Foreign Relations (in fact, I have very high hopes for his leadership). However, trading John Warner for Carl Levin on Armed Services is not a happy development.
2. Me. I got pretty close on the House and went 8/10 on the Senate (which would be a pretty good batting average in baseball), but I missed the big pick: loss of control in the Upper Chamber. Although I had Virginia as the key race, I had Allen squeaking by. I am still surprised that he lost--granted, I was one of the few surprised by this. (A review of my Senate picks here).
3. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are losers for all their cheerleading in advance of the election--and their sudden about-face "I told you so" recriminations the day after. (For another post on another day: Rush and Sean have it all wrong on immigration and minimum wage.)
4. Karl Rove and the theory of "turnout over persuasion" are losers (a review of my post considering the two schools of campaign strategy here).
5. Joe Lieberman is a big winner (a review of my posts on Joe Lieberman here). (FYI: Kos is a big loser--but not significant enough to merit his own number).
6. Mike DeWine and Jim Talent are major losses for the Senate and the United States. They are statesman of the first rank. So much of politics is timing. It is always a tragedy when good men get swept up in the zeitgeist of an election. Claire McCaskill may prove a great senator; we will wait and see. Sherrod Brown is in the Ted Kennedy-John Kerry class, and he will prove much too liberal for Ohio.
7. Comprehensive Immigration Reform and Minimum Wage win (see this post for a review of those issues as campaign levers). The Democrats wrecklessly gambled minimum wage on the election, which was risky, but they got away with it. Good for us. More on immigration and minimum wage as the debate unfolds.
8. The conspiracy theorists who assured us that diabolical Republican forces would rig the election through electronic voting machines lose again; my prediction: they are beat but not broken. They are silenced for now--but will be back soon.
9. The biggest loss in my book, however, is the Senate. I really hate to see the Senate turn over. I am happy that the GOP lost the House; we deserved to lose the House; the country is better off for the GOP losing the House. The Senate is a different story. The Upper Chamber is the more dignified body; the council of wise men. The "saucer that cools the fiery hot liquid of democratic-representative government." The Republicans are great at running the Senate.
More to the point, I hate to see the Republicans lose control of the Judiciary Committee. The Democratically controlled Judiciary Committee gave us the Robert Bork hearings and Anita Hill and the ultra-politicization of the judicial branch (not that the GOP did not return fire during the Clinton administration). But this all started when the Democrats won the Senate in 1986 and decided to teach Ronald Reagan and conservatives a lesson.
The change in chairmanship from Arlen Specter to Patrick Leahy is not a plus. We will see if the claims of a new tone and the end of partisanship are for real, but I have my doubts. One other thing: I trust Joe Biden as chairman of Foreign Relations (in fact, I have very high hopes for his leadership). However, trading John Warner for Carl Levin on Armed Services is not a happy development.
08/11: Morning After Quick Thoughts
1. I hate to see Santorum leaving the Senate. Perhaps, though, this will free him up to take a presidential run in 08. The other Republican names most talked about are not that exciting to conservatives.
2. I also hate to see Talent go. He was an able Senator.
3. We'll see what Pelosi & Co. do in the next two years, but if the left demands payment for services rendered, then it could become harder for Hillary or whomever to run as a Democrat in 08.
4. I see this election as being more about rejection of the Republican incumbants than than an affirmation of a Democrat message: they basically offered no message except that Bush and the Republicans were bad people. If Democrats start acting like they have a mandate for a liberal turn in government, then they will overplay their hand.
5. A victory for Big Biotech in Missouri with the narrow win for the amendment that guarantees patentable, profitable opportunities for biotech companies. (Not that the amendment was marketed this way.) One firm provided 97% of the funding behind this amendment.
6. John Kerry is probably sleeping off a very satisfying drunk: had the Dems not done as well as predicted, he would have become the scapegoat. As is, he can continue to entertain presidential fantasies.
2. I also hate to see Talent go. He was an able Senator.
3. We'll see what Pelosi & Co. do in the next two years, but if the left demands payment for services rendered, then it could become harder for Hillary or whomever to run as a Democrat in 08.
4. I see this election as being more about rejection of the Republican incumbants than than an affirmation of a Democrat message: they basically offered no message except that Bush and the Republicans were bad people. If Democrats start acting like they have a mandate for a liberal turn in government, then they will overplay their hand.
5. A victory for Big Biotech in Missouri with the narrow win for the amendment that guarantees patentable, profitable opportunities for biotech companies. (Not that the amendment was marketed this way.) One firm provided 97% of the funding behind this amendment.
6. John Kerry is probably sleeping off a very satisfying drunk: had the Dems not done as well as predicted, he would have become the scapegoat. As is, he can continue to entertain presidential fantasies.
08/11: What Tuesday Means
Quick Thoughts:
1. Back to work for the GOP. Losing is a painful but necessary and constructive part of life.
2. We need to "dance with who brung us." The Grand Old Party of this election was not the party of Ronald Reagan. We need to be the party of morality, frugality, patriotism, integrity, compassion and vision. We were not that party this time around. We don't deserve to win--until we embody those ideals again.
3. Gridlock is good. Irrespective of what the mainstream media says, the country is actually in pretty good shape. The best thing that could happen for the nation right now is for Congress to go on a two-year hiatus. God protects small children, drunks and the USA (de Gaulle? Bismarck?). Wall Street agrees.
4. Nothing passes without the consent of George Bush.
5. Oversight is back in vogue.
6. Immigration and Minimum Wage are in play.
7. Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman are personally invested in our success in Iraq. That is good news for the USA.
1. Back to work for the GOP. Losing is a painful but necessary and constructive part of life.
2. We need to "dance with who brung us." The Grand Old Party of this election was not the party of Ronald Reagan. We need to be the party of morality, frugality, patriotism, integrity, compassion and vision. We were not that party this time around. We don't deserve to win--until we embody those ideals again.
3. Gridlock is good. Irrespective of what the mainstream media says, the country is actually in pretty good shape. The best thing that could happen for the nation right now is for Congress to go on a two-year hiatus. God protects small children, drunks and the USA (de Gaulle? Bismarck?). Wall Street agrees.
4. Nothing passes without the consent of George Bush.
5. Oversight is back in vogue.
6. Immigration and Minimum Wage are in play.
7. Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman are personally invested in our success in Iraq. That is good news for the USA.
