Midterm elections

Remove all ads!

That would be some deep cover . Seriously, for democratic contenders, I'd have thought Howard Dean wasn't so bad. At least, what I hear from here isn't negative... If anything, he seems to lack any special charisma. Has he mishandled something in the past, or some such?

 

The thing with Dean is - he has diarhea of the mouth. It gets him into trouble often. He's also shown himself to be fairly unstable on more than one occasion. He's currently the leader of the DLC, but from what I hear he won't occupy that post for much longer. He showed a lot of promise early on in his Presidential run, and I was actually excited to see how far a candidate like Dean could go. But as it turned out, not that far.

 

I hope the Democrats hold the impeachments...

...until 2008 if they win the election then. Then they throw the book at Bush and his cronies, and make them suffer.

 

2008 will be interesting. Both parties will likely run better candidates, the Democrats trying to take full power, the Republicans trying to Hold on to power.

The Democrats can't do any worse than John Kerry, and the Republicans can't do any worse than George W. Bush...

 

Well, it's not like Bush isn't famous for his quotes - the one about dictatorship being easier (or faster, I can't remember which now) is pretty classic. Is Dean that much worse for it to matter?

[ November 12, 2006, 01:18: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

No, he's no worse than Bush in the saying-idiotic-things department. But the difference is Bush would say embarassingly stupid things and be loved anyway by the right. The left would not afford Dean the same courtesy. Democrats generally tend to have higher intellectual standards for their leaders, whereas the right seems to prefer the appearance/projection of strength and decisiveness.

I wouldn't sweat it about Dean. There are far better Democratic candidates to choose from. He's kind of a tool.

 

Oh boy, I wish the worst part about Bush (imo, of course) was his mastery of the English language... So when is the show about the 2008 elections going to begin? I must start saving for the tortilla chips and popcorn . Our elections are already over, so it's not like I have anything else to look forward to in the next month or two.

 

It began 3 days ago. I hope you have a lot of popcorn...you'll need a 2-year supply.

 

Dean is an idiot. The democrats already demonstrated they didn't want a cheerleader to represent their party in an election.

 

I was watching Bill Maher this weekend, and I think he brought up two very good points regarding Democratic canidates. He noted that the Democrats won the last election due to two principal factors:

1. The Republicans really screwed up. Yes, the Democrats put up some good canidates, but if it wasn't for repeated Republican screwups, it probably wouldn't have mattered. The election results were more because of the people being fed up with the current regime than anything else. I don't think that many Americans are confident that everything will be fine now that the Democrats control both the House and the Senate, but many Americans know that the Republicans had 6 years of complete power and couldn't get it done. An unknown result always beats a certain bad result.

2. The Democrats also wisely chose to stay away from topics that have been the political equivalent of the 3rd rail for them in the past. Specifically, it's pretty clear by now that a great many Americans love their guns, and really don't like gays. As such, no Democrat ran on a platform that included the legalization of gay marriages/civil unions, nor did their platform include any restrictions on the sale or use of firearms. They aren't the biggest fish to catch anyway. I can think of at least 10 more pressing issues than those that need to be worked out, so why risk your canidacy on a low-priority item?

 

It's also clear that Americans love their Social Security, and having their wages protected in a minimal manner, something Republicans still have not learned.

 

Yup - and that would be two of those 10 afore-referenced "more important items".

 

Hallelujah! The Democrats win both Houses! Bush: Humiliated and abashed! It's the Millenium!

Or is it? "Here comes the New Boss. Same as the Old Boss."--The Who.

Well, actually, I don't expect it to be as bad as all that; and it was good to see the neo-con morons get the kick in the teeth they so richly earned through their squandering of blood both American and Iraqi in a hopeless cause, and their impoverishment of the next generation by financing their failed war through credit, since they were unwilling to inconvenience their rich friends by voting a war tax, quite apart from the squalor of Katrina, unemployment, and general economic woes. Given the record, it's embarrassing that there's a Republican left in Congress.

And don't expect Bush to be abashed for very long, or to think long on bi-partisan approaches to our problems. He's not a bi-partisan kind of guy. The rhetoric may change, but the approach will not: How to win in Iraq, despite massive and persistant failure? How to attack Iran, despite the dubiousness of such a move? That, unless I am much mistaken, will be his agenda for the next two years, and Democratic majority be damned! Sorry if this sounds cynical.

Death Rabbit and others have suggested that it would be wrong for the new Congress to issue a flurry of subpoenas seeking to uncover wrongdoing of various sorts during the last six years, that it would undermine the new bi-partisanship--which does not yet exist--and poison the well of domestic comity. This is *****footing with a vengeance; nothing could be less apt.

The Republicans in the last twelve years have certainly shown no hestitations in poisoning the well and drumming the emotions of the True Believers to a fever pitch, at whatever consequence to the country, and no doubt there are millions living today who consider a dress stain more important than thousands of dead in a pointless and selfish war. But revenge on a wounded enemy is not the reason for issuing subpoenas. It is the just thing to do.

In our system the government is supposedly responsible to and accountable to the governed, but in recent years this has not been so. The government has done as it has seen fit to do, offering less and less plausible excuses for its actions. Some of these actions, it has been asserted, are illegal--I deliberately avoid specifics here. It is perfectly appropriate, indeed necessary, for Congress to examine such allegations to determine their truth. To do otherwise would be to fail in their duty to their oaths and to their country.

Well, that's probably a bit old-fashioned, and if any investigation is done, I'm sure it will be done in an appropriately partisan fashion.

 

I like the result. I'm, however, uncertain wether it will really be the sea change. As long as Bush is in charge his very person and personality will prevent a real change in US standing abroad. And then there is Cheney ... The neo-cons are far from beaten, and they are in both parties - Democrat Senator Liebermann being one very prominent example.

The pessimist in me sais the GOP lost midterm because Bush lost Iraq. Nobody likes losers, much less when they, oblivious to the obvious, vow to stay the course to the abyss. Faced with that the US electorate IMO pulled the emergency brake.
Yet I refuse to believe the support Bush had when he wanted to attack Iraq fell out of the blue, or was a propaganda induced red-herring. The political ideas that brought the Iraq war, Neo-Conservatism, Jacksonianism, Wilsonianism - didn't suddenly disappear with the midterm elections. They will continue to influence the US public discourse and foreign policy alike.

I would like to see restoration of accountability, which, after the death of rubber-stamp-congress, seems a genuine possibility. However, IMO it will take at least a decade to roll back Bush's constitutional overreach and it's manifestations (Patriot Act, Military Comissions Act, Unitary Executive Branch ideology to name a few). If there's another 'big one' like 9/11 it will take much longer.

This is just a beginning. Good luck.

PS: Chernak,

Concerning possible illegal acts by Alberto Gonzales' there was no investigation as the president decided to deny the in-house investigators who ought to investigate Gonzales at the Justice Department the neccessary security clearances. I don't expect the stonewalling to change.

 

Rag! Whee! Welcome back!

My housemate and I (politics stuents both) went out for drinkees to celebrate the result.

Havng said that, it's really debateable how much effect this will have. If the houses force Bush to leave Iraq, then we'll see a Republican landslide at the next elections.

 

Daie,
I had a generous shot of 14 year Ardbeg on the occasion.

I expect the changes after the midterm elections being primarily about domestic policy and accountability, and then, of course, about positioning for 2008. I doubt there will be a withdrawal before 2008. Bush as the president controls the executive branch, and naturally has the decisive impact on foreign policy. That means the Democrats, given they wanted to change course, would have very limited means to achieve that. IMO, the faster the US get out, the better. Withdrawal of choice is better than withdrawal in defeat, not to mention the obvious side effects *
Grandiose utterances like 'The Iraqis got to understand ...' by Dems and Reps alike suggest to me that there are still delusions rampant in DC about the ability of the US to influence what's happening in Iraq. Forget it, it's over. It is out of their hands.
If the US now see no choice but to support the Shia to fight the Sunnis, that will bring the US on collision course with their Sunni allies, namely Saudi Arabia (the Saudis of course will of course diplomatically deny that, with a straight face), the Gulf States and Jordan. They will then be working against the US for *their* interest. Unthinkable 5 years ago.

What Iraq is going through isn't just a civil war. It's way worse. The sad thing is that by 2008 Iraq will be well in their thirty year war ** - being made the battlefield of convenience of the power struggle between Shia, Sunni, Kurds and the meddlers, most prominently the US, UK, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Syria, the Gulf States, Israel and of course Al Quaeda, who will form various and changing political or sectarian fractions. The bloodshed and atrocities of this conflict will make everything Saddam did pale in comparison and scale. The neighbours and outside meddlers will fight their fight to the death of the last Iraqi.

** In this context my recommendation to read about the ideas behind the Peace of Westphalia that were cast aside as 'obsolete' to allow for the Iraq war.
* In agreement with Robert Pape's conclusion in his excellent book 'Dying to win'.

 

Ragusa - It is very good to have you back again in the Alley.

I don't think that will happen - US dollars flow into Saudi in large amounts, and large amounts of cheap oil flow out - both the Bush and Royal families are happy with the mutual, benefical relationship. Why would they let a little thing like Iraq ruin the party for them?

The Democrats have already put the plan on the table: 4-6 months and US troops start heading for home, in a gradual phase out. The political problems for Iraq are not the concern of the US, but are theirs to settle. We can help, as a thrid party, but it is not a military problem and as such, cannot solved by the US military. Don't think of it as a policy of "cut-and-run" but instead, "stop-and-think."

BTW, the neo-cons are finished here, atm. They are not only turning on Bush for ruining their grand plans, but are now turning and devouring each other - a good sign that they have their problems. But there will always be a few diehards to carry on the tradition:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15896208/site/newsweek/

 

Chandos, by supporting the Shia the US are holding a knife to the Saudi's throat

• Beating down Iraq's Sunnis will further enflame the Wahhabis inside Saudi Arabia, which is unstable enough already. They take solidarity serious. Their support for Pakistan's Deobandi and the Afghan Mujaheddin and later Bosnian and Chechen Muslims made that very clear. They will not sit idle while the Shia, or anyone else (as long as it's an outsider), butcher their Sunnis bretheren (that that's happening the other way around as well is beside the point here).
• The Saudis have a sizeable Shia minority in the critical part of the country, where the oil is. Considered heretics by the Wahhabis, they don't have a say in Sunni Saudi Arabia. If they get 'active' the Saudis are faced with dual instability, and it is unlikely they would survive that.
• By strengthening the Shia the US further Iran's interests, the other big player in the region, ironically also against what Bush describes as US interest if his talk of containing Iran is any indication. The Saudis made Iraq their proxy against Iran in the 1980s under Saddam in the original Gulf-War. Why do you expect them not to do it again, faced with the same perceived threat of an expanding Iran?

Having lined out the Saudi point of view, what do you think did they have to say to Cheney? 'Hey buddy, le's talk oil'?! Faced with the choice between their own survival and financial interest they are likely to choose survival. I expect the King to have made that point very clear. At the moment the Saudis probably have other things on their mind than to make the US happy.

Yes, the Saudis get lots of dollars, but they also re-invest a lot, and a lot of it outside the US. The have ballanced their investment, just in case. They aren't stupid. The US howling over the ports deal should have made abundandly clear to them that for Muslims the US is a hostile investment place today. The US administration seems utterly unaware about (or indifferent to) the impact their policies have on their allies. I wonder why. They have warned, and warned and warned again, to no avail. How often do you need to warn and be ignored to lose your remaining goodwill?

The US are in a position of weakness. Their Middle East policy is in shambles. Cheney's visit is an indication of how troubled the Saudis are. He was *summoned to* Riad. The official announcements are hogwash.

PS: As for the neo-cons, I read their neo-culpas with delight. The only one who came over as honest to me was Fukuyama; that was about a year and a half ago iirc when things were still spun as going splendid.
I have seen them counted out before. It's just a tactical retreat to the think-tanks. They will come back. They sure will get purged from the Pentagon. Cambone already quit. But in Cheney they still have someone who will listen to them; don't discount him.
The US stance toward Iran, toward Hezbollah in Lebanon, not to mention toward Russia, are still very much along neo-con lines. I think their ideas still appeal to the president's gut feeling. I'm confident Bush will ignore the 'findings' of the Iraq Study Group in anything but a few inevitably congratulatory phrases.

Krystols problem with George probably is just that he didn't already boldly attack Iran.

[ December 04, 2006, 13:14: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Ragusa is back! Joy to the world our lord is here! *throws flowerpetals on the ground*

 

Joa,
you're silly.