Directions

Posted on by

The headline news this morning is that Nancy Pelosi has endorsed John Murtha to become House Majority Leader. John Bresnahan writes for Roll Call:

Pelosi, in a letter distributed Sunday to newly elected House Democrats, wrote that Murtha’s outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq helped change the electoral campaign for the House this fall. Murtha began calling for a U.S. pullout from Iraq a year ago, and his open opposition to the war made him a focus of intense criticism from Republicans and the White House.

Pelosi, though, credited Murtha, one of her closest allies in the House, with changing the national debate on the issue and helping provide Democratic challengers and incumbents with a winning argument for the mid-term elections.

“With respect to Iraq in particular, I salute your courageous leadership that changed the national debate and helped make Iraq the central issue of this historic election,” Pelosi wrote in a personal letter to Murtha. “Your leadership gave so many Americans, including respected military leaders, the encouragement to voice their own disapproval at a failed policy that weakens our military and makes stability in that region even more difficult to achieve. The enthusiastic response of Americans all across this nation gave an enormous lift to our Democratic efforts, and your unsurpassed personal solicitations produced millions of dollars which were new to the effort. Those resources made a huge difference and particularly for the candidates on whose behalf you campaigned.”

Pelosi added: “Your strong voice for national security, the war on terror and Iraq provides genuine leadership for our party, and I count on you to continue to lead on these vital issues. For this and for all you have done for Democrats in the past and especially this last year, I am pleased to support your candidacy for Majority Leader for the 110th Congress.”

The current Democratic leader in the House is Steny Hoyer of Maryland, who has a strong base of support. Pelosi’s endorsement may not give the position to Murtha.

Predictably, some rightie bloggers seized on this news as an omen of the inevitable (they think) Democratic Party crackup. The Blue Crab, for example, writes that Dems are being disloyal to Hoyer; Pelosi “slid the shiv right into Hoyer’s back,” which shows what kind of people Democrats are. Commenter Crosspatch says,

Personally, I believe putting Jack Murtha as majority leader pretty much dooms the Dems in 08. Murtha is not at all popular with moderates and the Dems are going to need all the moderates they are going to get. So I would say overall, this is good news for the Republicans. Democrats shooting themselves in the foot is always a good thing.

The problem with Crosspatch’s analysis is that he seems to have hauled it out of his ass. If by “moderate” he means “almost one of us,” as I suspect he does, he should read Matt Yglesias’s analysis. Murtha tends to be to the right of Hoyer on most issues, Matt says. Ed Kilgore complains that Murtha has “actually been a bit to the right of Jimmy Dean Sausage on a host of issues over the years.”

On the other hand, according to a blogger at One America:

Murtha supports stem-cell research and is staunchly pro-labor, opposing both NAFTA and CAFTA. I realize Mr. Hoyer is a good and decent man who has paid his dues and is probably friendly and acceptable to corporate America. But as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid move the Congress forward in the post-DeLay/post-Abramoff era and endeavor to “drain the swamp” and implement true reforms, I would like the Democratic Party to choose a Majority Leader who appears “more pure” and “less corporate.” Jack Murtha exudes down-to-earth true-blue red-blooded American values and that’s who I want in a leadership position right now.

If you’ve got the stomach to visit Wizbang (I suggest waiting for at least an hour after breakfast), you can find a link roundup of rightie reaction. The blogger writes,

… we can expect the policy of cut and run very soon as the House cuts off funding for the war.

As the Democrats reveal their true colors, will the American voters begin to experience buyer’s remorse? I say bring on Murtha. If he, Nancy, and the other left wing loons get their way, they will have a hard time retaining control of the House in 2008.

Um, did these people sleep through the midterms? Did they not notice that a majority of voters want the Dems to get us out of Iraq?

And what happened to that chocolate chip corndog product that Jimmy Dean brought out a few weeks ago? I can’t find it on their web site. [Update: Never mind; I found it.]

As for loyalty — like voters care — Bob “the Reptile” Novak complains that Republicans take it a bit too far —

In private conversation, Republican members of Congress blame Majority Leader John Boehner and Majority Whip Roy Blunt in no small part for their midterm election debacle. Yet either Boehner, Blunt or both are expected to be returned to their leadership posts Friday. For good reason, the GOP often is called “the stupid party.”

Dontcha love it when the bad guys keep diggin’ that hole?

Rove Over

Posted on by

We’ll have Karl Rove to kick around awhile longer, unfortunately. But Rove’s glory days may be behind him. Richard Wolffe writes in Newsweek that Karl Rove just plain miscalculated the midterm elections:

Rove’s miscalculations began well before election night. The polls and pundits pointed to a Democratic sweep, but Rove dismissed them all. In public, he predicted outright victory, flashing the V sign to reporters flying on Air Force One. He wasn’t just trying to psych out the media and the opposition. He believed his “metrics” were far superior to plain old polls. Two weeks before the elections, Rove showed NEWSWEEK his magic numbers: a series of graphs and bar charts that tallied early voting and voter outreach. Both were running far higher than in 2004. In fact, Rove thought the polls were obsolete because they relied on home telephones in an age of do-not-call lists and cell phones. Based on his models, he forecast a loss of 12 to 14 seats in the House—enough to hang on to the majority. Rove placed so much faith in his figures that, after the elections, he planned to convene a panel of Republican political scientists—to study just how wrong the polls were.

I guess the panel idea is shelved for now.

His confidence buoyed everyone inside the West Wing, especially the president. Ten days before the elections, House Majority Leader John Boehner visited Bush in the Oval Office with bad news. He told Bush that the party would lose Tom DeLay’s old seat in Texas, where Bush was set to campaign. Bush brushed him off, Boehner recalls. “Get me Karl,” the president told an aide. “Karl has the numbers.”

On the other hand, Ken Mehlman’s numbers were pretty close to reality: “the GOP would lose 23 in the House (5 short of the final tally), 5 in the Senate (1 shy) and 6 governors (spot on).” Yet Mehlman’s the one who is stepping down. (Not that I mind.)

At Slate, John Dickerson reports that beltway Republicans are not blaming Rove for the midterm results.

…when I went looking for what I expected to be a massive orgy of Rove schadenfreude, I actually found that, for the most part, Republicans were defending him.

They started by arguing that the election could have been a lot worse. Conditions really called for a 35- to 45-seat loss in the House. Rove and Ken Mehlman built a ground operation over the last seven years that limited the losses. They knew where to drop all the cash they’d raised and how to micro-target voters. I find this silly. No one praises football coaches for losing by five touchdowns instead of six.

More plausible is the claim that much of what flipped the election was beyond Rove’s control. He couldn’t reverse the violence on the ground in Iraq. Could he have pushed Bush to drop Rumsfeld earlier? Maybe, if he’d made that case a year ago, but dropping Rumsfeld too close to the election would have looked desperate and would have enraged the Rummy-loving conservatives.

But the most persuasive argument of Rove’s defenders is that congressional Republicans deserve the blame for Tuesday’s outcome. What sapped the energy and enthusiasm of the base were Congress’ ethical lapses (culminating in the Foley fiasco), excessive spending, and addiction to earmarks. Rove allies are quick to point to exit polls showing that people mentioned “corruption” as their top concern when voting (but remember, Jack Abramoff visited the White House, too).

Dickerson points out that Rove still has a lot of power — “There are still commissions and ambassadorships and corporate boards that Rove can pack with Tuesday’s losers.” But I have a problem with this:

Even if Rove leaves Washington tomorrow, he’ll remain a leading light of the conservative movement for the unapologetic, even brutal, way he fights for conservative ideas.

Somehow, I doubt Karl gives a hoo-haw about “conservative ideas.” Karl’s interest in “ideas” begins and ends with which ones he can exploit for political purposes.

Take, for example, Karl Rove’s support of the Christian Right. According to Gary Wills’s recent article “A Country Rules by Faith” in the New York Review of Books (emphasis added):

… The evangelicals had complained for years that they were not able to affect policy because liberals left over from previous administrations were in all the health and education and social service bureaus, at the operational level. They had specific people they objected to, and they had specific people with whom to replace them, and Karl Rove helped them do just that.

It is common knowledge that the Republican White House and Congress let “K Street” lobbyists have a say in the drafting of economic legislation, and on the personnel assigned to carry it out, in matters like oil production, pharmaceutical regulation, medical insurance, and corporate taxes. It is less known that for social services, evangelical organizations were given the same right to draft bills and install the officials who implement them. Karl Rove had cultivated the extensive network of religious right organizations, and they were consulted at every step of the way as the administration set up its policies on gays, AIDS, condoms, abstinence programs, creationism, and other matters that concerned the evangelicals. All the evangelicals’ resentments under previous presidents, including Republicans like Reagan and the first Bush, were now being addressed.

Yet Rove-watchers James Moore and Wayne Slater say that Rove is agnostic and (according to David Kuo) calls evangelical leaders “nuts.”

I say Rove isn’t in politics because he cares deeply about conservative values, or conservative government, or even the United States of America. I don’t think he cares much about any of those things. Then why is he in politics? It might be useful to reflect on Karl Rove the “human being.” From Wikipedia:

Rove was born in Denver, Colorado and later raised in Nevada, the second of five children. His biological father abandoned the family early on and his mother remarried. His new adoptive father, Louis Claude Rove Jr., was a mineral geologist, and his mother, Reba Wood, was a gift shop manager. His older brother is Eric P. Rove, and his younger sister is Reba A. Rove-Hammond.

In The Architect, a new book chronicling Karl Rove’s life and conservative agenda, authors James Moore and Wayne Slater, reveal Rove’s father, Louis Rove, was homosexual.

Louis Rove left his family during the 1969 Christmas holidays and moved to Los Angeles where he eventually “came out.” According to Rove’s father’s best friend, an openly gay man named Joseph Koons, “Louie didn’t hide the fact that he was gay. But he didn’t play it up either.” The Architect describes Louis Rove as a shy man, encumbered by his three hundred pound figure. To encourage Rove to socialize, Joseph Koons, invited him to join a retired gay men’s group called the “Old Farts Club,” jokingly referred to among the men as the “Rainbow Casket.” …

… In December 1969, Rove’s father left the family, and divorced Rove’s mother soon afterward. After his parents’ separation, Rove learned from his aunt and uncle that the man who had raised him was not his biological father [Rove was about 19 at this point]; both he and his older brother Eric were the children of another man. Rove has expressed great love and admiration for his adoptive father and for “how selfless” his love had been.

Rove’s mother committed suicide in Reno, Nevada, in 1981, when Rove was 30 years old. He did not meet his biological father until he was in his 40s.

I’m saying that when your family history is that bleeped up, you either rise above it and become a bleeping saint, or you have Issues. Damn big ugly mother-bleeping Issues. So which way did Karl go? Joshua Green wrote in the Atlantic Monthly, “Karl Rove in a Corner” (November 2004):

It is frequently said of him, in hushed tones when political folks are doing the talking, that he leaves a trail of damage in his wake—a reference to the substantial number of people who have been hurt, politically and personally, through their encounters with him. Rove’s reputation for winning is eclipsed only by his reputation for ruthlessness, and examples abound of his apparent willingness to cross moral and ethical lines.

Face it; Rove isn’t in politics to champion “ideas.” He’s in politics so he can act out his many unresolved Issues and get paid for it.

Rove attended “nearly half a dozen colleges without getting a degree” says this page. This suggests a lack of direction. But early on he “found himself” in politics. When he dropped out of college for the last time in 1971 he took a job with the College Republican National Committee and never looked back. In the late 1970s he began working in Republican election campaigns and founded a direct mail consulting firm. Before getting involved with the Bushies and the 2000 elections, most of his successes as an election campaign manager were in Texas and Alabama. Back to Joshua Green, writing in 2004:

If there is any compelling reason to think that Rove may be out of his depth in this election, it is an odd lacuna in his storied career: no one I spoke with could recall his ever having to run an incumbent in a tough re-election race. This is partly a by-product of his dominance. Rove’s power in Texas was such that he could essentially handpick his candidates, and once elected, they rarely lost. And he spent most of his career in the favorable terrain of the Deep South. One reason Rove was spared re-election fights is that as demographic changes swept across the South, and Republicans in Texas and Alabama began displacing Democrats, the likelihood that a Democrat could depose a sitting Republican became remote. Rove has long excelled at knocking off incumbents in tight races. Now, at last, he must defend one.

Now we know that Rove succeeded, by the skin of his teeth and with a little help from his friends in Ohio. But I think two points are significant: (1) most of Rove’s campaign experience was in the South; and (2) Rove’s strength is knocking off incumbents with aggressively nasty campaigning. He generally doesn’t hang around to see if his candidates can actually govern or not.

With Rove there’s an almost total disconnect between politics and government. For example, in the Richard Wolffe column linked above we find:

Rove blames complacent candidates for much of the GOP’s defeat. He says even some scandal-tainted members won when they followed what he calls “the program” of voter contacts and early voting. “Where some people came up short was where they didn’t have a program,” he told NEWSWEEK.

In fact, Karl Rove’s influence over the White House and the Boy King may explain much of the Bush Administration’s near total dysfunction. Ron Suskind wrote in Esquire, “Why Are These Men Laughing?” (January 2003):

They heard that I was writing about Karl Rove, seeking to contextualize his role as a senior adviser in the Bush White House, and they began calling, some anonymously, some not, saying that they wanted to help and leaving phone numbers. The calls from members of the White House staff were solemn, serious. Their concern was not only about politics, they said, not simply about Karl pulling the president further to the right. It went deeper; it was about this administration’s ability to focus on the substance of governing—issues like the economy and social security and education and health care—as opposed to its clear political acumen, its ability to win and enhance power. And so it seemed that each time I made an inquiry about Karl Rove, I received in return a top-to-bottom critique of the White House’s basic functions, so profound is Rove’s influence.

I made these inquiries in part because last spring, when I spoke to White House chief of staff Andrew Card, he sounded an alarm about the unfettered rise of Rove in the wake of senior adviser Karen Hughes’s resignation: “I’ll need designees, people trusted by the president that I can elevate for various needs to balance against Karl. . . . They are going to have to really step up, but it won’t be easy. Karl is a formidable adversary.”

One senior White House official told me that he’d be summarily fired if it were known we were talking. “But many of us feel it’s our duty—our obligation as Americans—to get the word out that, certainly in domestic policy, there has been almost no meaningful consideration of any real issues. It’s just kids on Big Wheels who talk politics and know nothing. It’s depressing. Domestic Policy Council meetings are a farce. This leaves shoot-from-the-hip political calculations—mostly from Karl’s shop—to triumph by default. No one balances Karl. Forget it. That was Andy’s cry for help.”

Suskind quoted the famous John DiIulio letter:

“There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus,” says DiIulio. “What you’ve got is everything—and I mean everything—being run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis.” …

… “I heard many, many staff discussions but not three meaningful, substantive policy discussions,” he writes. “There were no actual policy white papers on domestic issues. There were, truth be told, only a couple of people in the West Wing who worried at all about policy substance and analysis, and they were even more overworked than the stereotypical nonstop, twenty-hour-a-day White House staff. Every modern presidency moves on the fly, but on social policy and related issues, the lack of even basic policy knowledge, and the only casual interest in knowing more, was somewhat breathtaking: discussions by fairly senior people who meant Medicaid but were talking Medicare; near-instant shifts from discussing any actual policy pros and cons to discussing political communications, media strategy, et cetera. Even quite junior staff would sometimes hear quite senior staff pooh-pooh any need to dig deeper for pertinent information on a given issue.”

Now that Rove’s had his ass handed to him on a plate, he still makes little connection between how elected officials do their jobs and their chances for re-election. He admits scandal and corruption took a toll, but that was just part of “the general distaste that people have for all things Washington.” And Iraq may have been a factor, but Lieberman won, so maybe not.

(I agree with Arianna Huffington on the Lamont-Lieberman race; Lamont lost ground when he stopped pounding an antiwar message — “Lieberman started sounding like Jack Murtha, while Lamont got off the Iraq train that had carried him to victory in the primary.” See also “America has had Enough of Bush’s Disastrous Course in Iraq” by Rep. John Murtha.)

With tongue just a little in cheek — I hope — Will Bunch trotted out a theory that Bush and Rove blew the midterms on purpose as part of Rove’s dastardly brilliant plan to pin the disaster of Iraq on Democrats; see also Greg Mitchell’s comments. Will has one point right, which is that the Democratic Congress might actually force Bush into governing for a change, instead of just politicking, which may actually work in Bush’s favor. Jonathan Alter pretty much says the same thing.

I’ll believe it when I see it. Karl still whispers in Bush’s ear, and I don’t believe Karl has learned much from the thumpin’. I wrote a whole year ago —

What about Karl Rove, who has been trying to build a permanent Republican majority? Although Rove is supposed to be some kind of all-seeing evil genius, I wonder sometimes if he isn’t more of an idiot savant. He’s brilliant at doing one thing–building political power through sheer nastiness. He may not be wise enough to see the seeds of destruction he has planted.

I stand by that. I do not think Rove will change either tactics or strategy. He’s a one-trick pony. The methods that work so well in the South are finally causing revulsion in the rest of the nation. But Rove can’t see that. He’s still thinking about a permanent Republican majority. But if the national Republican Party doesn’t cut its ties to Karl Rove, it might find itself trapped in the deep South, nothing but a quaint artifact of history and southern culture.

Armistice Day

Posted on by

Dan Froomkin’s Friday column is mostly an excerpt from the book Operation Homecoming: Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Home Front in the Words of U.S. Troops and Their Families. May they all come home safely, and soon.

This bit is by Sgt. Sharon D. Allen:

The camp is under red-lens light discipline, which means we can’t use an unfiltered flashlight. It severely lessens our evening entertainment options. So, soon after we arrived, we began our strange nightly gatherings. You won’t find it on any schedule, but you can set your watch by it. As the sun nudges the horizon and the gravel cools, some of us give up our battle with the ambient light and surrender our reading until the morning. Others collect up their poker winnings or grumble about their losses. And we all drag our chairs and cigarettes and joylessly warm water out to the gravel and talk. We call it “the circle.” In the Army there is an incredibly varied cross section of society, and we are a diverse group. We have a couple kids straight out of high school, who’d either joined to get a little excitement out of life or to get a leg up on it so that they could go to college. We have older guys, who’ve already put in their time. They tend to be either jaded or genial, both in reaction to the accumulated bullshit slung at most soldiers who’ve been in the service for years. We have everyone from idealists to realists to fatalists, more than a few who began at one end of the spectrum and eventually meandered their way to the other.

I always find it amusing when people talk about “the military” vote, perspective, or whatever. My company has 170-some soldiers, and 170-some opinions. We might have more invested in foreign policy than people back home, but that doesn’t mean we all agree on exactly what those policies should be. Two of the guys, Jeff and Sam, are brothers serving together here but in different platoons. They are both slightly to the left of extremely conservative, yet also very anti-Iraq war. Their father threatened to cut off his own head and send it in to Al-jazeera if his sons aren’t returned home soon.

Be sure to read the whole excerpt. The soldiers are asking the same questions about the war that we are (or should be).

There are some on both the Left and the Right — I think the Right is worse, actually — who speak of “the troops” as if they were an army of identical clones. For example, last week rightie bloggers declared that the Gannett-owned military Times newspapers don’t speak for “the troops,” as if they and they alone were authorized to declare who speaks for whom in the military. Just after the Tuesday election, I caught a couple of rightie posts (can’t find them now, sorry) declaring that “the troops” in Iraq were upset by the results because they didn’t want to come home before “the job” was done.

What a pile of manure. “The troops” are individuals who come to their own conclusions. Some want to continue military operations in Iraq, and some don’t. Some think the invasion was necessary, and some don’t.

You know I think the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. But speaking of war generally, I say — if you’re going to have a war, have a war. If the situation is so dire that a war must be fought, then the strength and resources of the entire country should be marshaled to fight the war and get the bleeping thing over with as quickly as possible. Every single day, every citizen should be reminded that our soldiers are fighting for us, and should be asked to give something to the effort. If recruitment goals fall short, then crank up the draft. There should be bond drives and oil rationing. There should be cookie baking and sock knitting, and children should donate their lemonade stand money for the troops.

And if the situation isn’t dire enough to go to that amount of trouble, then maybe we shouldn’t be fighting the bleeping war to begin with.

Suggestion: Donate to the USO.

From the archives: Wilfred Owen.

The Religion Question

Posted on by

In recent years, conventional wisdom said that Democrats needed to get religion. As the Republicans steamrolled progressivism with cultural “wedge” issues and well-thumped Bibles, many fingers wagged at the Democrats. They just weren’t religious enough, pundits said. It was no longer good enough for a politician to kiss babies and promise to cut taxes. These days, some said, you have to kiss babies, promise to cut taxes, and witness for Jesus to be politically viable.

After Tuesday — um, maybe not.

Via Daou Report — a Republican County Chairman in Iowa blames the religious Right for Tuesday’s “thumpin’.” Bret Hayworth writes in the Sioux City Journal:

A day after the Democratic sweep of the midterm elections, Woodbury County Republican Chairman Steve Salem had harsh words for his own party, lambasting the influence of the conservative Christian right wing.

Salem said he coined a new phase: “You’ve heard of IslamaFascists — I think we now have Christian fascists. What is the definition of a fascist? Not only do they want to beat you, but they want to destroy you in the process.”

Salem said “if things keep going the way things are going locally and statewide, it is going to be more and more difficult for Republicans to recruit candidates. We have elements of the party who are moral absolutists, who take the approach that if you don’t take my position every step of the way, not only will I not support you, but I will destroy you.” …

… Salem said he’s going public with his views in order to ultimately help the party.

Said Salem, “I think that the Republican Party needs to do a huge self-analysis and determine if we are going to learn from our mistakes or if we are going to repeat the same mistakes, which, if we do, we are going to continue to lose elections. … Personally, I don’t know how we could have done much worse in this election cycle. That should be a wake-up call to this party.”

You can’t blame Mr. Salem for being a bit tense. Last Tuesday Democrats gained control of both Iowa statehouses and kept the governorship as well. It’s been four decades since Dems so totally dominated Iowa state government.

(On the other hand, Georgia grew redder. I would really like to see a state-by-state breakdown of statehouse races, to see which state governments swung into Dem territory and which stayed Republican. Sidney Blumenthal wrote last week that the Republicans are in danger of becoming a southern-based regional party, and I’d like to see if that pattern really is forming.)

According to CNN — although white evangelicals still voted overwhelmingly for Republicans, Catholics, Jews, “other,” and “none” voted for more Democrats than Republicans. I infer from the tables that evangelicals of color must have voted for more Democrats than Republicans also.

Nationwide, the demographic groups still more loyal to Republicans than Dems are white men, people who make more than $100,000 a year, self-identified “conservatives,” people who claim to attend church at least once a week, married people — very narrowly — and white evangelicals. But that’s about it. Kind of a narrow base, I’d say.

And what’s worse for Republicans — James Dobson and some other prominent Christianists of the Right are blasting the GOP. The Associated Press reports —

Conservative Christian leader James Dobson accused the Republican Party of abandoning values voters in the midterm elections – and paying the price by losing control of Congress. “What did they do with their power?” Dobson said in a statement. “Very little that values voters care about.”

Finger-pointing abounded in the days after Democrats seized control of Congress after 12 years in the minority. Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family, issued a statement railing against the Republicans for letting their majorities slip away.

“They consistently ignored the constituency that put them in power until it was late in the game, and then frantically tried to catch up at the last minute,” said Dobson, who argued that religious conservatives ensured GOP wins in 2004. …

… “Without the support of that specific constituency, John Kerry would be president and the Republicans would have fallen into a black hole in ’04,” Dobson said. “In fact, that is where they are headed if they continue to abandon their pro-moral, pro-family and pro-life base. The big tent will turn into a three-ring circus.”

If white evangelicals abandon the GOP — Republicans are screwed.

I’m still suffering brain fuzz from staying up too late Tuesday night, but I’m trying to pull together thoughts on politics and religion going forward. If anyone has any observations on this topic, please add them to the comments.

Friday Cat Blogging

Posted on by

Miss Lucy wants you to see that she still has a lovely figure after two mastectomies.

Miss Lucy is on borrowed time, even by cat standards. A few weeks after the second mastectomy last June — thirteen months after the first one — I felt some more lumps near where one of her mammaries used to be. I called the vet and told him I didn’t want to put her through any more treatment. She’d had it with vets and surgery and medicine. I weaned her off the medication she was on and prepared to watch her deteriorate to cancer.

Except that she didn’t. The lump disappeared, and she’s been happy as a clam since. She’s eating well, purrs a lot, and bosses me around vigorously. I think if she makes it through Christmas with no signs of disease I’ll call the vet to tell him she’s not dying after all.

Montana! Virginia!

Posted on by

Conrad Burns conceded, and George Allen has agreed to concede, or something. [Update: CNN says he conceded.] Right now on CNN Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and Chuck Schumer are holding a victory rally somewhere on Capitol Hill.

Yep; Allen conceded.

Update: The Republican shutout still holds. All governor’s races are settled except for Minnesota, and in that case the incumbent is Republican. There are ten undecided House races, and I believe there is only one in which the incumbent is a Democrat — Georgia district 12. If that race goes to the Republican it will spoil the shutout.

Here’s a heartbreaker — the Ohio district 2 race between “Mean Jean” Schmidt and Victoria Wulsin has yet to be called, but Schmidt is slightly ahead of Wulsin.

America Says No to Wedgies

Posted on by

I’m still trying to wrap my head around the results of the midterm elections. But one result I hope I’m seeing is the beginning of the end of “wedge issue” campaigns that get right-wing extremists elected.

Consider same-sex marriage. It’s true that seven of eight states passed same-sex marriage bans on Tuesday. However, these ballot initiatives — which in the past brought enough hard-Right voters out of the woodwork to swing elections — seem not to have impacted House or Senate races at all. Andrew Romano, Lee Hudson Teslik and Steve Tuttle write for Newsweek.com:

Three of those states—South Carolina, Idaho and South Dakota, all of which voted for bans—were reliably Red, and no Republican candidates needed the boost. In Wisconsin (which voted 59 percent to 41 percent in favor), gay marriage had no bearing on the outcome: incumbents won across the board, with a Democrat, Steven Kagen, taking the only contested House race. A similar story played out in Colorado, which voted 56 percent to 44 percent for the ban: the lone Republican to win a key race was an incumbent. In Tennessee (80 percent to 20 percent in favor), the measure wasn’t much of a wedge, despite a crucial Senate win for Republican Bob Corker. Both he and his Democratic opponent, Harold Ford, opposed gay marriage.

Another ban passed in Virginia, but it appears Virginians elected Jim Webb anyway. In the House, Virginia incumbents, mostly Republican, all won; no seats changed parties. Perhaps the ban impacted some close House races and kept the Webb-Allen contest closer than it might have been, and had a more liberal Democrat been running against Allen the wedge tactic might have worked. But you know what they say — woulda, shoulda, coulda.

And Arizona narrowly rejected a same-sex marriage ban. If “gay marriage” has lost its usefulness as a wedge issue, I predict the national Republican Party is going to be far less interested in it in the future.

Arizona also rejected a slate of immigration hard-liners in favor of candidates with more moderate positions on immigration. This is from an editorial in today’s Los Angeles Times:

… voters in the state demanded a more nuanced and pragmatic solution than that being offered by the most virulently anti-illegal immigration candidates. The best illustrations came in the races for two House seats, one representing the sparsely populated border counties in southeastern Arizona and the other representing some upscale suburbs east of Phoenix. A six-term Republican incumbent, J.D. Hayworth, and a former Republican state representative, Randy Graf — both known for their firebrand stances on border security — lost to Democrats Harry Mitchell and Gabrielle Giffords, who had aligned themselves on immigration with McCain.

Make no mistake; Arizonans have not gone “soft” on immigration. The editorial says Arizona voters —

… overwhelming support Tuesday for ballot initiatives to deny bail, curtail subsidies for education and childcare, limit civil damage awards for illegal immigrants and make English the state’s official language. Voters backed all these proposals, reflecting a widespread belief that illegal immigrants impose a variety of burdens on taxpayers.

But the voters might have had enough of the bullying extremists. Via David Neiwert, Kynn Bartlett reports,

In the morning on voting day, two men — anti-immigrant crusader Russ Dove and his cameraman — showed up at precinct 49 in Tucson, at the Iglesia Bautista church, 4502 S. 12th St. Their plan: To harass and intimidate Spanish-speaking voters by using an “English-only” petition to screen for “illegal immigrants” trying to vote, videotape them, and post their likenesses on the Internet. Roy Warden also came, armed with a gun — as he usually does — and the trio started approaching a small number of people. MALDEF monitors were there, to observe the effect of Arizona’s new requirement for ID to vote, and observed the attempted intimidation tactics.

The trio left around noon to head to other polling places, then gave up after talking to only a few people. MALDEF reported this to the authorities, who are investigating; MALDEF has photographs of the men from when they were there.

MALDEF (the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund) reports other intimidation tactics at the polls. Be sure to read all of David’s and Kynn Bartlett’s posts to get the full picture. (And may I say the thought of some extremist thug showing up at a polling place with a gun gives me the willies.)

In Missouri, the embryonic stem cell initiative worked as a wedge issue in Claire McCaskill’s favor. As the Newsweek.com article linked above says, “The issue divided Talent’s Republican supporters, many of whom favor stem-cell research for its potential to boost a local economy increasingly reliant on biotechnology firms.” Since a big majority of Americans nationwide support federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, I believe the national Republican party will be very cautious with this issue going forward. (They should have known better than to cross Nancy Reagan.)

South Dakota voters handily defeated SD’s draconian abortion law, which banned all abortions with no exceptions for rape and incest and only the flimsiest thread of an exception for a woman’s health. In spite of this, SD’s whackjob Republican governor, who was behind the ban, was re-elected by a wide margin. Still-red SD also voted to ban same-sex marriage and rejected a medicinal marijuana initiative. The Fetus People vow to continue the fight in SD and re-introduce the abortion ban in the future. But the several other state legislatures considering similar bans may be having second thoughts. Meanwhile, Oregon and California voted no on proposed laws that would have required parental notification when minors seek abortions.

In California, voters dumped an anti-environment extremist incumbent. Michael Doyle reports for McClatchy newspapers:

The “Western rebellion” that propelled California Republican Rep. Richard Pombo to power now has receded, leaving many of its most important goals unmet and possibly beyond reach. …

… The Western rebellion, also known as the Sagebrush rebellion, involves people in the West who think that the federal government oversteps itself on property rights issues, especially regarding enforcement of the Endangered Species Act. They also chafe over the fact that half the West is owned by the federal government instead of privately.

Pombo’s surprisingly resounding loss to wind energy consultant Jerry McNerney, 53 percent to 47 percent, made the onetime rancher the only one of 19 Republican committee chairmen in the House of Representatives to go down in defeat Tuesday.

Nationwide —

Of 13 lawmakers identified by the League of Conservation Voters’ “Dirty Dozen” campaign, nine lost Tuesday. They included Rep. Charles Taylor of North Carolina, whose Democratic opponent, Heath Shuler, likewise benefited from the organization’s ads. Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, another ad target, also lost.

Why electing a Democratic majority matters:

The probable new chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer. She’s one of the Senate’s most liberal members; the current chair, Oklahoma Republican James Inhofe, is among the most conservative.

The changing cast of characters will play out in many ways:

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil-and-gas drilling perennially championed by House Republicans won’t go anywhere in the next Congress. Drilling off the coast of Florida or other states becomes a real long shot.

Other controversial ideas that Pombo once toyed with – such as selling 15 little-visited National Park Service sites, including playwright Eugene O’Neill’s home in the California city of Danville – are down for the count.

The Endangered Species Act, which Pombo built his career on combating, has a new lease on life. The Democrat who’s poised to become House Resources Committee chairman, Rep. Nick Rahall of West Virginia, voted against Pombo’s Endangered Species Act legislation. The League of Conservation Voters gave Rahall a vote ranking of 92, compared with Pombo’s score of 17.

Take that, Naderites!

Minimum wage increases passed in all six states it appeared on the ballots. However, Tuesday was not a sweep for liberalism. Per the Newsweek.com story linked above, Michigan banned affirmative action. Initiatives in Colorado and Nevada that would have decriminalized private possession of small amounts of marijuana were defeated. But on the whole, Tuesday’s elections did more than turn the House and Senate over to the Dems. It also took the wind out of the extreme Right’s sails.

See also: The “Top Five Winners and Losers.” The article actually lists the top six winners and losers, but there’s plenty of winning and losing to go around this week.

Bush’s Remarks

Posted on by

The transcript.

THE PRESIDENT: … I’m an optimistic person, is what I am. And I knew we were going to lose seats, I just didn’t know how many.

Q How could you not know that and not be out of touch?

THE PRESIDENT: You didn’t know it, either.

Q A lot of polls showed it.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, there was a — I read those same polls, and I believe that — I thought when it was all said and done, the American people would understand the importance of taxes and the importance of security. But the people have spoken, and now it’s time for us to move on.

Looks like commenters to the last post were right — Bush said the people don’t understand the importance of taxes and the importance of security.

He’s insulting the intelligence of the voters.

All afternoon I’ve seen talking heads on television praise Bush for being willing to change direction in Iraq. But Jack Murtha is on MSNBC right now saying that he’s not hearing about a change in policy. I agree. Let’s go back to the transcript.

What Bush said:

The message yesterday was clear: The American people want their leaders in Washington to set aside partisan differences, conduct ourselves in an ethical manner, and work together to address the challenges facing our nation.

We live in historic times. The challenges and opportunities are plain for all to see: Will this country continue to strengthen our economy today and over the long run? Will we provide a first-class education for our children? And will we be prepared for the global challenges of the 21st century? Will we build upon the recent progress we’ve made in addressing our energy dependence by aggressively pursuing new technologies to break our addiction to foreign sources of energy? And most importantly, will this generation of leaders meet our obligation to protect the American people?

Translation: Bush is daring the Dems to just try to force him to change his policies on taxes, No Child Left Behind, globalization, energy, and Iraq.

I know there’s a lot of speculation on what the election means for the battle we’re waging in Iraq. I recognize that many Americans voted last night to register their displeasure with the lack of progress being made there. Yet I also believe most Americans and leaders here in Washington from both political parties understand we cannot accept defeat.

Translation: Bush is not even thinking about taking troops out of Iraq.

In the coming days and weeks, I and members of my national security team will meet with the members of both parties to brief them on latest developments and listen to their views about the way forward. We’ll also provide briefings to the new members of Congress so they can be fully informed as they prepare for their new responsibilities.

As we work with the new leaders in Congress, I’m also looking forward to hearing the views of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by Secretary James Baker and Congressman Lee Hamilton. This group is assessing the situation in Iraq and are expected to provide — and the group is expected to provide recommendations on a way forward. And I’m going to meet with them, I think, early next week.

Translation: Bush will go through the motions of listening to different points of view. And then he’ll decide to stay in Iraq.

The election has changed many things in Washington, but it has not changed my fundamental responsibility, and that is to protect the American people from attack. As the Commander-in-Chief, I take these responsibilities seriously.

Translation: I’m still in charge.

Amid this time of change, I have a message for those on the front lines. To our enemies: Do not be joyful. Do not confuse the workings of our democracy with a lack of will. Our nation is committed to bringing you to justice. Liberty and democracy are the source of America’s strength, and liberty and democracy will lift up the hopes and desires of those you are trying to destroy.

To the people of Iraq: Do not be fearful. As you take the difficult steps toward democracy and peace, America is going to stand with you. We know you want a better way of life, and now is the time to seize it.

To our brave men and women in uniform: Don’t be doubtful. America will always support you. Our nation is blessed to have men and women who volunteer to serve, and are willing to risk their own lives for the safety of our fellow citizens.

Translation: They’ll have to waterboard me to get me to agree to a withdrawal from Iraq.

When I first came to Washington nearly six years ago, I was hopeful I could help change the tone here in the capital. As governor of Texas, I had successfully worked with both Democrats and Republicans to find common-sense solutions to the problems facing our state. While we made some progress on changing the tone, I’m disappointed we haven’t made more.

Translation: The President is a sociopath.

I’m confident that we can work together. I’m confident we can overcome the temptation to divide this country between red and blue. The issues before us are bigger than that and we are bigger than that. By putting this election and partisanship behind us, we can launch a new era of cooperation and make these next two years productive ones for the American people.

Translation: It’s my way or the highway.

That’s how I heard it. If you disagree, speak up.

Now, for the questions from the press:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Does the departure of Don Rumsfeld signal a new direction in Iraq? A solid majority of Americans said yesterday that they wanted some American troops, if not all, withdrawn from Iraq. Did you hear that call, and will you heed it?

THE PRESIDENT: Terry, I’d like our troops to come home, too, but I want them to come home with victory, and that is a country that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself. And I can understand Americans saying, come home. But I don’t know if they said come home and leave behind an Iraq that could end up being a safe haven for al Qaeda. I don’t believe they said that. And so, I’m committed to victory. I’m committed to helping this country so that we can come home.

Now, first part about —

Q A new direction.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, new direction. Well, there’s certainly going to be new leadership at the Pentagon. And as I mentioned in my comments, that Secretary Rumsfeld and I agree that sometimes it’s necessary to have a fresh perspective, and Bob Gates will bring a fresh perspective. He’ll also bring great managerial experience.

And he is — I had a good talk with him on Sunday in Crawford. I hadn’t — it took me a while to be able to sit down and visit with him, and I did, and I found him to be of like mind. He understands we’re in a global war against these terrorists. He understands that defeat is not an option in Iraq. And I believe it’s important that there be a fresh perspective, and so does Secretary Rumsfeld.

I don’t know how much more plainly he could say that he’s not going to change policy in Iraq. He’ll make some tactical tweaks, but no more.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You said you’re interested in changing the tone, and committed to changing the tone in Washington. Just a few days before this election, in Texas, you said that Democrats, no matter how they put it, their approach to Iraq comes down to terrorists win, America loses. What has changed today, number one? Number two, is this administration prepared to deal with the level of oversight and investigation that is possibly going to come from one chamber or two in Congress?

THE PRESIDENT: What’s changed today is the election is over, and the Democrats won. And now we’re going to work together for two years to accomplish big objectives for the country. And secondly, the Democrats are going to have to make up their mind about how they’re going to conduct their affairs.

Arrogant as ever, ain’t he?

Q Mr. President, thank you. You acknowledged that this is a message election on the war in Iraq. And so the American public today, having voted, will want to know what you mean in terms of “course correction on Iraq.” And particularly in light of this fact, that last week the Vice President pointed out that you and he aren’t running for anything anymore, and that it’s “full speed ahead on Iraqi.” So which is it? Are you listening to the voters, or are you listening to the Vice President? And what does that mean?

THE PRESIDENT: David, I believe Iraq had a lot to do with the election, but I believe there was other factors, as well. People want their Congress — congressmen to be honest and ethical. So in some races, that was the primary factor. There were different factors that determined the outcome of different races, but no question, Iraq was on people’s minds. And as you have just learned, I am making a change at the Secretary of Defense to bring a fresh perspective as to how to achieve something I think most Americans want, which is a victory.

We will work with members of Congress; we will work with the Baker-Hamilton Commission. My point is, is that while we have been adjusting, we will continue to adjust to achieve the objective. And I believe that’s what the American people want.

Somehow it seeped in their conscious that my attitude was just simply “stay the course.” “Stay the course” means, let’s get the job done, but it doesn’t mean staying stuck on a strategy or tactics that may not be working. So perhaps I need to do a better job of explaining that we’re constantly adjusting. And so there’s fresh perspective — so what the American people hear today is we’re constantly looking for fresh perspective.

But what’s also important for the American people to understand is that if we were to leave before the job is done, the country becomes more at risk. That’s what the Vice President was saying — he said, if the job is not complete, al Qaeda will have safe haven from which to launch attacks. These radicals and extremists have made it clear, they want to topple moderate governments to spread their ideology. They believe that it’s just a matter of time before we leave so they can implement their strategies. We’re just not going to let them do that. We’re going to help this government become a government that can defend, govern, and sustain itself, and an ally in the war on terror.

Again, how much more plainly can he say that he’s not changing policy? He’ll consider tactical changes, but that’s it.

I’m not sure what this was about:

THE PRESIDENT: … And so, Jim, look, I understand people don’t agree — didn’t agree with some of my decisions. I’m going to continue making decisions based upon what I think is right for the country. I’ve never been one to try to fashion the principles I believe or the decisions I make based upon trying to — kind of short-term popularity. I do understand where the people — the heart of the people. I understand they’re frustrated. I am, too, as I said the other day. I wish this had gone faster. So does Secretary Rumsfeld. But the reality is, is that it’s a tough fight, and we’re going to win the fight. And I truly believe the only way we won’t win is if we leave before the job is done.

Yes, Jim.

Q May I follow, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: I know, terrible principle. I’m sorry.

Q Thank you, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: You think I’m nuts? (Laughter.) You think — you think my sensibility has left me as a result of working hard on the campaign trail, Gregory? (Laughter.)

WTF?

Q But to follow, we were speaking about the war, and during the campaign, two very different viewpoints of the war came out. You spoke a lot, as Bret mentioned, about what you saw as the Democratic approach to the war, which you were greatly concerned about. Are you worried that you won’t be able to work with the Democrats, or do you feel like you have to prevail upon them your viewpoint?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think we’re going to have to work with them, but — just like I think we’re going to have to work with the Baker-Hamilton Commission. It’s very important that the people understand the consequences of failure. And I have vowed to the country that we’re not going to fail. We’re not going to leave before the job is done. And obviously, we’ve got a lot of work to do with some members of Congress. I don’t know how many members of Congress said, get out right now — I mean, the candidates running for Congress in the Senate. I haven’t seen that chart. Some of the comments I read where they said, well, look, we just need a different approach to make sure we succeed; well, you can find common ground there.

Translation: “OK, so I’ll talk to the Democrats and the Baker Commission if I have to, but I only want to listen to suggestions about how my policy might become more glorious than it already is.”

See, if the goal is success, then we can work together. If the goal is, get out now regardless, then that’s going to be hard to work together. But I believe the Democrats want to work together to win this aspect of the war on terror.

See?

I’m also looking forward to working with them to make sure that we institutionalize to the extent possible steps necessary to make sure future Presidents are capable of waging this war. Because Iraq is a part of the war on terror,

Translation: I’m going to bleep up the Middle East so much we won’t get out of Iraq until the 22nd century.

… and it’s — I think back to Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower. Harry Truman began the Cold War, and Eisenhower, obviously, from a different party, continued it. And I would hope that would be the spirit that we’re able to work together. We may not agree with every tactic, but we should agree that this country needs to secure ourselves against an enemy that would like to strike us again.

Translation: We should agree that I’m right.

This enemy is not going away after my presidency.

And I look forward to working with them. And I truly believe that Congresswoman Pelosi and Harry Reid care just about as much — they care about the security of this country, like I do. They see — no leader in Washington is going to walk away from protecting the country. We have different views on how to do that, but their spirit is such that they want to protect America. That’s what I believe.

Just like I talked about the troops. I meant what I said. Look, the people that’s — are going to be looking at this election — the enemy is going to say, well, it must mean America is going to leave. And the answer is, no, that doesn’t — not what it means. Our troops are wondering whether or not they’re going to get the support they need after this election. Democrats are going to support our troops just like Republicans will. And the Iraqis have got to understand this election — as I said, don’t be fearful. In other words, don’t look at the results of the elections and say, oh, no, America is going to leave us before the job is complete. That’s not what’s going to happen, Jim.

How many more bleeping ways can he say, “I’m not changing the course”?

Several reporters questioned how Bush could pledge to stick by Rumsfeld last week and dump him this week. Bush’s answers basically boiled down to what I said last week was just politics, because of the election. But in another part of the questions he said “I’m still going to try to speak plainly about what I think are the important priorities of the country.” OK.

Bush Speaks

Posted on by

I’ll link to a transcript when I find one, but in so many words Bush is saying he’s not going to change Iraq policy or any other policy.

Fun fun fun.

Update: A reporter asked Bush if the troops will come home, and Bush said he wants them to come home to victory. He’s committed, he says. Doesn’t say to what, or to where (snort) but he’s committed. Defeat is not an option, he says. So the fight is on.

Update: Bush was making noises about “changing the tone.” A reporter brought up Bush’s line that if Democrats win, America loses. Bush flipped it off, in so many words, and said Dems need to consider how they are going to conduct themselves.

I get the impression that Bush wants to blame Republican ethical problems on Republican defeat. He’s bringing in a new SecDef in order to find “change” in Iraq. He’s OK with “adjusting” tactics and strategy, but he’s digging in his heels over Iraq and letting Congress know there will be no change in policy from the White House.

Update: Lordy, he’s talking about how “future presidents” will need to continue the war in Iraq.

Update: Mike Allen wrote earlier:

Despite his dramatically weakened political position, the President plans to stand up to Democrats and challenge them to work with him on issues he has been promoting. But the opposition now has little reason to cave.

President George W. Bush plans to respond to last night’s Republican wipeout with a combination of conciliation and firmness that is unlikely to pacify an empowered and emboldened opposition. Aides say that beginning with an appearance in the East Room this afternoon, Bush will try to cast the blue wave as an opportunity rather than a defeat, and will vow to plunge ahead with transformative goals like reworking the Social Security system for fiscal longevity. “The same group of problems are there,” White House Press Secretary Tony Snow tells TIME. “You just will have some different people in the leadership. We have an opportunity to have an activist last two years of this Presidency, which will be good for the country.” Snow, who worked conservative talk radio for three hours yesterday afternoon, said Democrats now “have to decide whether they’re going to be part of the solution, or are going to try to shut down the government for two years and point fingers at the President.”

In other words, Bush’s tune is still “my way or the highway.”

Advisers expect a battle royale over the balance of powers if Democrats use their new subpoena power to try to conduct what the White House is already calling “witch hunts.” Bush and Vice President Cheney have made the expansion of executive power one of their hallmarks, and advisers say they do not plan to give up any of the ground they have won without a fight all the way to the Supreme Court. “We’re going to have a fierce constitutional showdown over the boundaries of power between the executive and legislative branches,” one adviser said. “The executive usually wins those battles, so we think we’ll consolidate our gains.”

Oh, this will be a fun couple of years.

Update: The speech is over. Chris Matthews is making noises about how Bush is responding to the will of the voters on change in Iraq, but what I heard was a non-response response. But Matthews also says that Bush broke with Cheney on Rumsfeld, who wanted Rummy to stay, or else wanted to replace him with a neocon.

Gates has ties to the elder Bush and his old national security team, including James Baker and Brent Scowcroft. We’ll see if that means anything.