| Thursday, November 09, 2006 |
| The Thursday morning blend |
Lose an election ... become the chairman of the RNC... is that the formula? And how can Michael Steele vie for the job as head of the Republican Party after running for the Senate as an undercover GOPer whose bumper stickers read "Steele Democrat"...? Not to mention the idea of putting a Black man in charge of a party that targeted Black voters for disenfranchisement and intimidation with abandon during Tuesday's elections... Update: apparently, Black voters in Maryland weren't exactly fooled by Steele, or his high profile Black supporters... I think it's time to retire the idea that you can poach 25%-30% of the Black vote by shoving a Black Republican out front.
Could there be any richer irony than a recount ... in Florida ... for the seat vacated by Katherine Harris?
BTW, TPMM's tribute to the Republican fallen is a can't-miss...
Robert Gates is Bush I's man, and he has in the past sent signals of diplomacy-mindedness as regards Iran. Is that why the Israelis -- who still hold out hope that we'll go to war against Iran on their behalf -- aren't feeling so good about the Midterms?
Well the Israelis may not like it, but Arab governments react with some serious bluntness and barely disguised glee at the Bush team's drubbing Tuesday. And the Europeans aren't too unhappy about it either... with most European papers blaming the GOP's drubbing on the ignominious trio of corruption, Iraq fatigue, and dissatisfaction with Dubya.
Meanwhile at home, Fred "Beetle" Barnes gives his own weary post-mortem...
THIS ONE IS PRETTY EASY TO EXPLAIN. Republicans lost the House and probably the Senate because of Iraq, corruption, and a record of taking up big issues and then doing nothing on them. Of these, the war was by far the biggest factor. Unpopular wars trump good economies and everything else. President Truman learned this in 1952, as did President Johnson in 1968. Now, it was President Bush's turn, and since his name wasn't on the ballot, his party took the hit.
The defeat for Republicans was short of devastating--but only a little short. The House seats the party lost in New York and Connecticut and Pennsylvania will be hard to win back. Just as Republicans have locked in their gains in the South over the past two decades, Democrats should be able to solidify their hold on seats in the Northeast, as the nation continues to split sharply along North-South lines.
What should worry Republicans most, however, is erosion of its strength in the West and in two states in particular: Colorado and Arizona. Fours years ago, Colorado was solidly Republican. Since then, Democrats have won a Senate seat, two House seats, the governorship, and both houses of the state legislature. At the state level, that's realignment. Yes it is. (We have Dr. Larry Korb on the radio show right now, and he just said that had it not been for gerrymandering, the Dems would have won even more seats. I concur... And one good point Barnes makes is that the notion that Dems won by fielding "conservative" candidates across the board is so much hype. Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer did a great job of fielding the appropriate candidate for each individual race, including liberal, anti-war candidates for Maryland, Rhode Island and of all places Ohio, where the winner, Sherrod Brown, is also strongly pro-labor, and conservative ones for Pennsylvania, North Carolina and out West. And even I've got to admit that Howard Dean's 50 state strategy is looking pretty smart this morning...) And now that the "realignment" has occurred, what does Nancy Pelosi owe the Black Caucus? And if she denies Conyers, Rangel and Thompson, the chairmanships their seniority entitles them to, will African-Americans rebel?
Meanwhile, it now appears that young voters got 'er done. Nice! And If Drudge's leaked numbers are correct: 31,591,495 (D) vs. 25,054,569 (R) ... the Dems' 6 million vote advantage is proof positive that what happened on Tuesday wasn't a marginal victory, it was a clear message to the president, who now has just two years to salvage some scraps of a legacy.
Ivo Daadler of Brookings is looking hellafied prophetic today.
The Washington Times tries to revive John McCain's presidential prospects, by asserting without proof that he came out a winner on Tuesday, despite supporting loser after loser after loser... maybe it was his endorsement of Bob Corker that will make him the man to beat in '08.. not.
And the Dems have now played their first card, and it's a good one:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Triumphant U.S. congressional Democratic leaders began to flex their new political muscle on Wednesday by urging President George W. Bush to host a bipartisan summit on the Iraq war and find common ground with them on such domestic issues as education and health care.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said the American people voted for change in Tuesday's elections.
"I hope that he (Bush) will listen," Pelosi said at a news news conference after receiving a congratulatory telephone call from Bush, who also called Reid.
"I told him (Bush) what I said last night -- that I looked forward to working in a bipartisan way with him, that the success of the president is always good for the country and I hoped that we could work together for the American people," Pelosi said.
Reid said: "It is time to put partisanship aside and find a new way forward - at home and in Iraq. Today, I ask the president to convene a bipartisan Iraq summit with the leaders of Congress." The left won't like it, ironically the right, which is licking its wounds right now, might. But the key is, the middle will love it. And that's what matters. This is about winning over the mainstream, and right now the mainstream wants bipartisanship and action, not partisanship and fighting. Bush's advisors have figured it out, too. I think the Karl Rovian strategy of hammering the opposition and constantly stoking the base -- making everything hardcore political, even 9/11 ... is basically over.
On the other hand... make no mistake ... the Democrats will not be allowed to shrink from their responsibility to do due oversight, and to provide answers to the American people on some of the most fundamental questions of what has gone wrong, particularly regarding Iraq, and the apparent profiteering of American companies in that theater. There will be hearings. But I think the Dems will wait a while, until after they've had some time to govern, and to get right to the issues that matter to the widest plurality of voters. They will hold hearings on Iraq, and on key economic issues. But don't expect impeachment to commence on January 22nd. The Dems want to start pulling America back from the brink, and they can't do it by stepping on the accelerator.
Tags: Politics, News, elections, 2006, Republicans, Democrats |
posted by JReid @ 7:21 AM   |
|
|
|
|
