Election Thread

by

by hilzoy

I don’t know whether or not I’ll update this as the evening progresses, but I might. In the meantime, here, with great big caveats (remember 2004! remember 2004!), are purported exit polls:

“Dem leads:
VA: 52-47
RI: 53-46
PA: 57-42
OH: 57-43
NJ: 52-45
MT: 53-46
MO: 50-48
MD: 53-46

GOPer leads:
TN: 51-48
AZ: 50-46″

Allen, Santorum, and Weldon losing: that would make me happy whatever else happened.

Dirty tricks in my very own state:

“Inaccurate sample ballots describing Republican Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. and Senate candidate Michael S. Steele as Democrats were handed out to voters in at least four polling sites in Prince George’s County this morning.

The ballots were distributed by people who said they arrived by buses this morning from Pennsylvania and Delaware.

Erik Markle, one of the people handing out literature for Ehrlich, who is seeking reelection, and Steele, the current lieutenant governor who is campaigning to replace retiring Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D), said he was recruited at a homeless shelter in Philadelphia. (…)

The Ehrlich and Steele campaigns yesterday acknowledged sending out an election-eve flier, sporting pictures of Prince George’s County Executive Jack B. Johnson, his predecessor Wayne K. Curry and former NAACP president Kweisi Mfume. The mailer, declaring itself an “official voter guide” and criticized by Democrats, suggested the three Democrats backed Ehrlich and Steele. Curry has endorsed Steele; none has endorsed Ehrlich.”

Results should start trickling in after 7. Fwiw, I predict Democrats gaining 22 in the House and 4 in the Senate. (I’m blocking those exit polls out of my mind; this has been my prediction for a while. But I’m lousy at predictions; my record of getting them wrong is truly breathtaking.)

270 thoughts on “Election Thread”

  2. So I just got back from voting – straight Democratic, even though it meant I couldn’t vote Kinky for governor. It would be pretty awesome if he won, though I know he won’t.
    I doubt my vote will matter much anyway, since I live in the heavily Republican 7th Congressional District of Texas. The current (and probable continuing) occupant of this House seat is John Culberson, who looks a little like Philip Seymour Hoffman, but is way less cool. His Democratic opponent is Jim Henley – not the blogger, but this guy, who is a middle-school debate teacher and the brother of convicted/pardoned Whitewater felon Susan MacDougal. So, at least he’s got a head start on the whole corruption thing. I voted for him anyway, ’cause Culberson just irritates me.
    No problems voting, and no excitement at the polling location either. The lone placard-carrying issues supporter that I saw was urging people to vote “yes” on the critical Proposition G for the city of Houston, which promises to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for the police, fire dept, street repair, and kittens, all without raising taxes. Needless to say, I voted “yes.”
    I don’t see a vote for Democrats as a vote for liberalism, because there’s no way they can get their act together enough to actually push this country to the left. If they take control of Congress and stop Bush from doing any more damage over his last two years, I’ll be satisfied.

  3. to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for the police, fire dept, street repair, and kittens
    About time! A little post election freshening up of this place would be nice. Maybe something along the lines of ‘It’s morning in the blogosphere’

  4. It’s not an open thread, is it? Cause I’ve been wondering why the site is called “obsidian wings”. Can anyone enlighten me?

  5. In the meantime, here, with great big caveats (remember 2004! remember 2004!), are purported exit polls:
    Everywhere else in the world – and in the US, oddly enough, until relatively recently – exit polls are a reliable marker of election results. Only in the US do hordes of invisible voters suddenly decide to vote in the last hour before the polls close… and, strangely enough, all of these invisible hordes choose to vote so as to reverse the exit polls.
    No inquiry is deemed necessary. Since the invisible voters vote Republican, after all, they can’t possibly be felons, illegal immigrants, or Democrats, so there can be no problem with allowing their votes to be counted.

  7. Jumpin’ Jehovah, CNN shows Allen ahead by 16 points, and the gay marriage ban passing. I’m glad I’m moving out of Virginia next year.

  13. But I’m lousy at predictions; my record of getting them wrong is truly breathtaking.

    Worse than exit polls? Worse than Kos, even?
    I voted about 8:15am today; the polls were practically empty. Looks as if Nelson is going to win handily, but it also looks as if Keller will win handily. And it looks as if Foley’s stand-in is winning as well.
    No surprises here, then, except for maybe the Foley-replacement factor.

  18. Odd. Calling elections with 1% reporting.
    Well, we’ll see if this works any better this time than it did the last couple of times.

  20. I voted about 8:15am today; the polls were practically empty.
    i drive by the place where i vote on my way to and from work. so, i’ve been watching it for a week, during early voting and today, to check turnout – i never once saw a line. there’s about 50 feet from the front door inside to the voting room, but still – for the presidential elections, i stood outside for an hour, waiting.
    midterms is boring.

  23. No inquiry is deemed necessary. Since the invisible voters vote Republican, after all, they can’t possibly be felons, illegal immigrants, or Democrats, so there can be no problem with allowing their votes to be counted.
    Well the night is early Jes, but the GOP seems to be getting shellacked. Hell, they lost “Clerk of Wills” here. And I have seen a lot of big margins.
    So, if the vote seems lopsided in a D landslide in the end will you still be suspicious?

  24. So, if the vote seems lopsided in a D landslide in the end will you still be suspicious?
    Sorry – that was uncalled for. I am feeling very weird right now. We were watching the returns and my wife said, “What have we done, voting that way”? Well dear, apparently what lots of other folks done…
    I’ve never been in this situation before, so apologizes if I seem cranky for a bit. I’m just glad this damned thing is going to be over soon (I hope).

  26. I wonder if the robocall thing backfired?
    I don’t suppose I’m really the righht person to offer reassurance to OCSteve but… I really don’t think the Democrats are going to do anything that’s worse than what we’ve already experienced. I hope they’ll do better than that..paygo, common sense security measures, responisble oversight, stuff like that.

  27. OCSteve:
    I wouldn’t worry too much about a Dem “landslide” – so far the results seem well within the limits predicted – but “lopsided” results seem to be the rule in most Congressional districts: it’s a function of rampant gerrymandering – I’ve noticed that something like 65-35% margins (D or R) are more common than not in most House races: the number of really close contests is pretty small.

  32. I’m already thrilled with the House. The Senate would be better, obviously, but….
    I turned 28 at midnight. The last election night the Democrats won the House, Senate, or Presidency, I wasn’t old enough to vote.

  33. Happy Birthday, Katherine!
    CharleyCarp: Get ugly?
    Well, there’s ugly, then there’s Florida 2000 ugly. If by some stroke of luck both Montana and Missouri go blue…

  35. My.
    We broke out the champagne when Weldon went down — we thought that Santorum’s loss was champagne-worthy, but not unexpected enough.
    Think of this: Henry Waxman can hold hearings.
    OCSteve: “Sorry – that was uncalled for. I am feeling very weird right now. We were watching the returns and my wife said, “What have we done, voting that way”? ”
    I don’t think the Democrats will be too hard on conservatives. For one thing, we don’t have anything approaching veto-proof majorities; for another, I suspect we will be very much aware that a lot of the margins were close, and we are on probation. I could be wrong, but I think that should make conservatives who voted Democratic sleep easier.
    Even I am happy with that — I’d much rather we concentrate on pulling together the country than that we push our majority as hard as we can. That’s one of the things I mind about Bush (not as much as the corruption, incompetence, and arrogance, but one thing) — the fact that he has always governed as though he had a huge mandate, even though he never did, and never so much as tried to reach out to anyone.
    From the point of view of me getting my favorite policies adopted, looking to the long run and trying to build a consensus will be the smart play. From the point of view of the country, of course trying to heal will be the best thing as well.
    For what it’s worth: by ‘trying to bring the country together’ I do not mean that we should e.g. not hold hearings, lay blame where it is deserved, and so forth. Holding hearings is about letting the country see what has been going on, and getting accountability for things like corruption in Iraq reconstruction. What I do mean is: building support by laying out our case, strongly when need be, rather than forcing through divisive issues when there is nothing like a consensus behind them, through arm-twisting and fear-mongering and tricks. I believe that we will do that, both for tactical and principled reasons.
    As I said, I could be wrong. But we know that the present Republican leadership doesn’t operate that way, so it could hardly get worse.
    In any case, if the Democrats turn into blue versions of Tom DeLay, I will drive out and buy you and your wife a gloomy drink, and we can commiserate together.

  38. Happy Birthday, Katherine.
    Perhaps many East Coast readers have gone to sleep. What a dramatic reversal this is becoming! I turned off the boob tube, discourged about Missouri, Montana, Arizona, Virginia, and so forth.
    And then I get a call an hour later saying perhaps the Dems can take the Senate!
    People: consider Bush’s reserves for coping with adversity. How does he handle this? His style for six years has been to (1) push his will through and (2) hide his head in the sands of denial. A kind of bully.
    Both might be untenable from this day on.

  40. Looks like Webb’s lead is widening. He’s up to a 12,000 vote margin according to NPR. If I’ve done the math right, that would put him just over half a percentage point ahead. I’m not sure I’m going to be able to sleep tonight.

  42. OCSteve: As a junior doomsayer 1st class, I will say that I’m very happy and definitely surprised by the preliminary results. There’s still the question of what results will be challenged and how recounts will go, and room for lots of vileness there…but the results we’re seeing now seem to match the recent months’ polls pretty well. I have no doubt that there is monkey business to expose and (I would hope) nail, and that while the worst and deepest will be Republican, there are Democratic malefactors to get too. I would be happy to see a lot of vote-riggers’ heads on pikes, not that I expect to (but I’m willing to be surprised there, too).
    I’d sum up the results as I’ve seen them so far about like this: Despite inexcusably widespread incompetence and corruption, a basically representative election took place.

  43. Interesting challenge now for the lefty blogosphere. First chance we’ll get at monitoring a Democratic Congress rather than carping at incumbents.
    I hope we make good use of the opportunity.
    The country could really use some good government right now.

  46. OCSteve: Well the night is early Jes, but the GOP seems to be getting shellacked.
    Yeah, it does, doesn’t it?
    I am looking up crow recipes to figure out ways of turning them vegetarian.
    With a happy little grin on my face.

  47. Think of this: Henry Waxman can hold hearings.

    It’s a relief that finally Waxman will be able to spend a few hundred thousand hours and several hundred Congressional hours to determine, once and for all, that President Bush spent $150 more to hop to a carrier on a jet instead of by helicopter.

  48. It’s a relief that finally Waxman will be able to spend a few hundred thousand hours and several hundred Congressional hours to determine, once and for all, that President Bush spent $150 more to hop to a carrier on a jet instead of by helicopter.
    W00t! The first right-wing spin that Bush never did anything really bad his first six years in office! *rubs hands* Thanks, Slart. With any luck at all, I can now look forward to two years of you sulking about Speaker Pelosi and her subpoena powers… 😉
    *sends you a virtual slice of crow pie*

  49. I’m not seeing too much mention of the gay-marriage-ban amendments passed in more than one state; anyone got the up and up on that? Looks to me as if close to half a dozen states passed measures banning same-sex marriage.

  50. I can now look forward to two years of you sulking about Speaker Pelosi and her subpoena powers

    Looking forward, rather, to just what Democrats will do with their newfound power. As for Waxman, it’s one of the things he complained most vocally about, so I think it’s fair to consider where his priorities might be.
    Not sure where the crow comes in…did I at some point predict a Republican victory, or vote for one?

  51. Looking forward, rather, to just what Democrats will do with their newfound power.
    Exactly. I look at what Speaker Pelosi promises to get done in the first hundred hours, and I swear to you, I kvell. If nothing else – and I don’t doubt Bush’s veto pen will be busy, busy, busy (he may even have to cut down on his vacations) finally, if Democratic representatives have the majority in the House and are prepared to go to work, investigations can happen. No more casually sweeping the dirt under the carpet. Did you know that a Republican House of Representatives spent about ten times more hours investigating Clinton’s Christmas card list than was spent investigating Abu Ghraib?
    Not sure where the crow comes in…did I at some point predict a Republican victory, or vote for one?
    Yes, frequently. Is this a new spin that we’re now to forget you were a loyal Republican? Slartibartfast voted for Eurasia: Slartibartfast has always voted for Eurasia. 😉

  52. If nothing else – and I don’t doubt Bush’s veto pen will be busy, busy, busy

    That’s something to look forward to; it’s been rather unbusy the last six years.

    Yes, frequently.

    Well, then an example or two ought to be rather simple to find. Have at it. Good luck; you’re going to need it.

  53. Congratulations Democrats and happy B-day Katherine!
    I wish that the Senate wasn’t still up in the air… I hereby go on record as opposing the Republicans mounting any legal challenges, absent very clear evidence of malfeasance. It was obvious to me by bedtime that most of the country wants a change. That’s how it works here, so let’s just move forward.
    The people have spoken. Now you have 2 years to convince me I could vote for a D president 🙂
    Oh, and the Lieberman thing? Sweeeeet.

  54. Well, then an example or two ought to be rather simple to find. Have at it. Good luck; you’re going to need it.
    Ah, Slarti1984fast. Okay, have it your way. You’re a Democrat now, and you were always a Democrat. Anything I think I might have read from you any time in the past four years or so indicating that you’re actually a Republican and want to see Republicans in power was just my wrong thinking. Minitrue will fix that for you.

  56. The country could really use some good government right now.
    And the first step in that process should be oversight, investigations, subpoena’s and impeachment.
    Oh, and the Lieberman thing? Sweeeeet.
    And every Republican under forty who voted for him should be drafted and sent to Iraq to clean up the mess.

  57. lj: be careful not to ruin Katherine’s birthday, especially after all of the work that went into getting her this present
    What? Slarti1984fast wants it to be known he’s always been a Democrat and we should never think he’s ever supported the Republicans: I think that’s actually a quite splendid birthday present, and I’m happy to go along.

  58. You’re a Democrat now, and you were always a Democrat.

    I see you’re committed to living in A Separate Reality. Well, don’t let me deter you; continue simply making things up.

  59. I’ll give you a short roundup of the right-o-sphere this morning (so you don’t have to go there):
    Hugh Hewitt is losing his mind. It’s all McCain and Frist’s fault. “Senator Santorum is now available for a seat on the SCOTUS should one become available.” I wouldn’t have thought him to be a big drinker…
    MM – “Conservatism did not lose” because we won on some ballot initiatives:
    “Property rights initiatives limiting eminent domain won big. MCRI, the anti-racial preference measure, passed resoundingly. Congressman Tom Tancredo, the GOP’s leading warrior against illegal immigration–opposed by both the open-borders Left and the open-borders White House–won a fifth term handily. Gay marriage bans won approval in 3 states. And as of this writing, the oil tax initiative, Prop. 87–backed by deep-pocketed Hollywood libs, is trailing badly in California.”
    The Powerline guys:
    Mostly straight and level. Still holding out hope for the Senate.
    The Corner:
    Mona Charen: “The terrorists turned the Spanish election by the deft placement of a few bombs days before an election. They turned ours by killing 100 soldiers in Iraq in one month. (I know, it’s more complicated than that, but that’s how our enemies will interpret it.) That American voters would send such a message is deeply dismaying.”
    John Miller: “Something tells me that news editors will ice all the voter fraud stories they had reporters working on. I can hear the anchors now: “The machines worked better than expected!” “Despite concerns, there were no major irregularities.” Etc.”
    Goldberg: “The American people embraced the party of cut and run — oops, sorry “responsible redeployment” — during a war. That’s really, really, really bad. The Dems can’t do too much else to screw things up between now and ’08 when the voters and the GOP will get a do-over. But, on the war(s) — still the most important issue — this is just a terrible, terrible message. It needn’t be if the Dems act like grown-ups. But who around here wants to stake everything on that possibility?”
    John Miller: “The GOP loss of the House and possibly the Senate may provide a boost to the next Republican presidential candidate: It will give him something in Washington to run against.”
    James Robbins: “My guess is that any high ranking official at DOD who was around in 2003 is going to be spending most of the time getting ready for hearings, investigations, maybe worse. The more recent appointees at the top four or so levels may avoid the worst of it, though they too will be kept busy. But those on hand for the Iraq invasion are going to be facing non-stop Congressional interrogations. I suppose we’ll see an exodus from the Building shortly.”
    K-Lo: “Now that it’s past midnight, I begin my Santorum for SecDef campaign.”
    TKS: “I think the Democrats have inferior policies. But the country chose ’em; now they get to see how they work.”
    No apparent suicides anyway…
    LGF: “With the House in Democrat control, we can expect to see flying subpoenas and impeachment hearings, and big parties across the Middle East.”
    Captain Ed is the most forthright:
    “I don’t think anyone can honestly look at the results tonight and say that we saw anything less than a trip to the woodshed for the Republicans.”
    “However, in terms of policy at least, the American people have spoken. The majority endorsed these views, and now we have to see them play out. We can certainly criticize it — and we will — but we have to respect the voice of the American electorate. They wanted a different direction, and now they have to experience its consequences.”
    Sore losers are we? A general feeling of “this what the people wanted now they will have to live with it”

  62. Oh, and just in case there are other people besides Jesurgislac who are confused on where I stand: I am still not a Democrat.
    Congratulations to the Democrats, with my wishes that you use your new powers wisely.
    And a belated happy birthday, Katherine.

  63. Slarti: Oh, and just in case there are other people besides Jesurgislac who are confused on where I stand: I am still not a Democrat.
    Ah. Just someone who’s consistently opposed the Republicans and hoped for their defeat, always, always, always. Never done anything else. Right.
    Unfortunately, I still have memories from the other leg of the Trousers of Time, Slarti, but I’m sure they’ll fade as we move into this new reality.

  64. Great night all around. Oddly enough, an exception seems to be the Philly suburbs, other than Weldon’s loss. Gerlach and Fitzpatrick’s races are still too close to call, and current results suggest Gerlach may survive. If one had predicted 3 months ago that the D’s would only win 1 out of the 3 races here, I’d have thought there was no way they would take the House.
    Happy B-day, Katherine.

  66. So the Senate is still up in the air. If Tester and Webb win, that will give the Dems 51 votes even without Lieberman, if I’m reading the numbers right.
    Anyway, for today at least I’m wishing the Dems the best of luck over the next two years. I don’t see how they could possibly do worse than the current crop of Republicans, although that’s not saying much.
    Happy birthday, Katherine!

  68. 3rdGB: If Tester and Webb win, that will give the Dems 51 votes even without Lieberman, if I’m reading the numbers right.
    Which is fantastic, because honestly, if Lieberman was the swing vote, wouldn’t he be unbearable? If he’s not the swing vote, it will be interesting to see if he starts voting with the Democratic Senators if it appears that will do his career more good than continuing to vote Republican.
    I don’t see how they could possibly do worse than the current crop of Republicans, although that’s not saying much.
    *grin* That’s for sure.
    *birthday cake to Katherine*

  69. Not sure what you mean about Lieberman, TGB. He’s necessary for the 51. So Tester’s and Webb’s wins would set us up for the possible Lieberman backstab feared by some — either caucusing with the Republicans or accepting an administration position and letting Gov. Rell appoint a Republican replacement. I think Lieberman is incredibly angry, and will be a much larger pain and Bush enabler than before, but I don’t think he’s crazy enough to do either of those things. Why would he want to be Secretary of Defense?

  70. Right now it looks as if Allen and Webb are both going to win. Tester’s ahead by 0.5% of the vote with 1% left to report, while Webb is ahead by 0.3% with 1% left to report.

  71. Wow. Did a Democratic incumbent lose anywhere? There are two GA house races that are still very close, with the D incumbents ahead by very close margins, but that’s all I can see.

  72. Oh screw Goldberg. just two weeks or so ago he wrote the war off. His suggestion was to put it to a vote in iraq, knowing they’d vote to send us home. This is how it starts: first one, then another, then the whole Noise Machine chanting “We could have won but the Dems made us lose”.

  75. Congratulations to all whom participate here who also put time and effort into this victory for the Democrats in the House … and maybe the Senate.
    Happy Birthday, Katherine!
    Hilzoy, you’ve been a rock.
    Me? I merely shoot my mouth off. But I counsel our new Democratic folks in Congress to act firmly, but with humility, and to fashion policy with your minds and hearts, rather than with your testosterone glands, your certainty synapses, and your bile ducts.
    If you don’t know something, call an expert, for crying out loud. The elections are over and we amateurs have had our say. If the expert turns out to be God, who seems to always turn out to be a bit of a demagogue, keep it to yourselves, because it’s just not fair to the other experts.
    And, look, keep your hands off the under-the-table-money, the teenaged pages, and if you absolutely must have an extramarital affair, can you at least have the good grace to get a private room?
    You are a reflection of the electorate. I wouldn’t dwell on it, though, if you plan to be able to get out of bed every morning.
    If you encounter a swift-boater, a macaca howler, or a Barney fag malaproper-on-purpose, I give you permission to strike them down in their tracks, with prejudice.
    Let your opponents attend all the meetings. They pay taxes, too, and with a little luck, they’ll be paying more.
    If someone hands you a napkin with a sketchy economic theory scrawled on it, sneeze a big blowzy one it, and send it to Larry Kudlow.
    Don’t screw up too badly, because DaveC and OCSteve’s wife will come to us about it, and the voices in my head might agree with them. Not that they (the voices) would ever admit it.
    I’m going for a run.

  76. Gromit, it’s looking like there’ll be no Democratic losses for Senate, House, or governors’ seats. Don’t know the last time a party accomplished that, but it’s been a very long while, if it’s ever happened at all.

  77. If anyone cares, the DCCC shindig was interesting but generally unremarkable. Free booze, Pelosi looks better and sounds worse in person than on TV, didn’t stay until Reid and Schumer showed up. People were pretty happy, of course.
    If anyone wants to get in on a start up paper shredding company in the DC area for the next two months, give me a ring, I hear demand will be way up.
    Oh, so do we bomb Iran before the end of the year?

  78. because DaveC and OCSteve’s wife will come to us about it
    And trust me – you really really don’t want that (speaking just for my wife) 😉

  79. I was sorry to see Ford lose in Tennessee. Despite some of the comments on CNN last night it is not a solid red state. It’s also worth noting that, while no doubt he received overwhelming support from black voters, the state is only about 15% or so black, so got considerable white support.
    The Republicans were a bit lucky here, in that Corker was the most moderate of the three primary candidates in their primary. Had he not been the nominee, and he had only a plurality in the primary, I think Ford would have won the election.
    OK. Call me greedy.

  81. My wife and kids and in-laws are straight-tickets Dems.
    A couple of premonitions: Haifa is a heap of rubble in 2008, and John Bolton still is not confirmed as UN ambassador by then.

  82. Hmm:

    “Now, one of the things is both parties have got a lot work to do,” Snow said. “The president has got a very active agenda for the next two years and you’re going to need both parties. There has to be a calculated decision by the Democrats.”

    Yeah, the Democrats better get right on the president’s “very active agenda”.
    Dick Armey is on Diane Rehm warning the congressional Democrats against “irrational exuberance”.

  83. Wow, Katherine’s younger than me?!
    Happy birthday (big three-oh for me in April :-S)!
    Re: election – Bill Bennett and JC Watts were on CNN last night trying to spin the victories of Casey and other ‘conservative’ Dems as an affirmation of the ‘Evangelical’ electorate’s power (they also noted an exit poll that indicated 40% of Webb’s support came from Evangelicals.) Further speculation centred around how the growing number of centrist/conservative Democratic representitives and senators would interact with the more ‘liberal’ leadership.
    Thoughts?

  84. Kind of in response to DaveC’s comment, I did a swift scan through the kind of blogs I usually never look at (the right-wing ardent Bush supporter kind) and was reminded, sadly, that a large minority of political activists really sincerely believe the crap the Bush administration have been feeding them, that the Republican Party is strong on terrorism and sound on national security; even that the Bush tax cuts weren’t targetted at the super-rich.
    Now that the efforts to rig the elections this time have failed (I am still surprised/pleased at that: but I guess if enough people vote against the Republicans, it really is possible to reverse the Diebold effect) I hope that one of the issues for Democrats in the House and elsewhere will be working effectively to make the 2008 Presidential elections more honest than the 2000 or 2004.

  85. In Louisiana (which has weird elections, with multiple Democrats and Republicans), William Jefferson, the money-in-the-freezer guy, has the plurality but only 30%, while other Democratic candidates combined have about 55%. So it looks like Carter (the second-place candidate, also a Democrat) might be able to knock him off in the runoff election.

  86. CNN has Tester up by about 1800 with only Meagher County to come in. Meagher has a population of only about 2000, and is shown on the CNN map as not leaning heavily either way.
    If all this is accurate, and who knows if it is, Tester is in excellent shape.

  89. Holy crap! This could be the most sensible things I’ve ever seen come out of Bizarro World.
    A legal challenge in VA would likely involve lifting a rock with a lot of ugly, squirming things on its underside. Not that this factors into the poster’s calculus, necessarily. Just saying.
    His and the commenters’ apparent ignorance of Republicans’ role in the ugliness of Florida 2000 is charming, though.

  90. Things worked out better than I expected, and much better than I feared. My disappointments are Lamont’s loss (which I had been expecting for weeks), the Virginia marriage amendment (which I had been expecting for months, until the last week when I started thinking it might fail), and a few horrible Republicans who managed to survive the wave (Marilyn Musgrave in Colorado is the main one).

  91. His and the commenters’ apparent ignorance of Republicans’ role in the ugliness of Florida 2000 is charming, though.
    Yes, I thought about excepting that from my “sensible” comment.
    He could also be laying the ground work for showing how reasonable he was when Allen was losing if the count turns around and Webb ends up behind.
    Anyway, let’s hope for a Webb/Tester sweep.

  92. Ah, be fair. There are plenty of Americans who still believe George W. Bush won in Florida in 2000, and honestly aren’t aware that Al Gore got the most votes. If you really think Bush won (and after all, no US media outlet reported the facts) that would color your view of how the election was decided.

  93. Yesterday’s results can be laid squarely on Bush and, to a much lesser degree, Hastert. If they had only listened to me and actually governed as conservatives, communicated as conservatives and prosecuted Iraq as conservatives, then Republicans wouldn’t be where they are today. As it is now, we’re a long way from the days of Reagan, both chronologically and philosophically.
    Firing Rumsfeld now is probably too little too late, but it still needs to be done. After Bush, he is the lead architect of the Iraq mess, under-manning the operation, failing to adjust quickly enough and failing to launch a bona fide counter-insurgency campaign.
    The Republican House leadership and the biggest-spending appropriators need to be swept out. Hastert has been a complete bonehead in this election cycle, and he should be nowhere near any positions that require leadership.
    If House Republicans think that they’re only out in the wilderness for two years, they’ve got another thing coming. Bush’s failing presidency is going to keep dragging them down, and Senate prospects don’t look much better.
    As for Bush, it looks like he’s going to muddle through his last two years, without making the necessary changes to help his country, his administration or his party. Bush demanded loyalty and he got it. Too bad he didn’t add competence and conservative principles to that loyalty package. It might’ve saved him from going down in the books as a third-rate president, which is where I think he’s going to end up.
    If we’re going to get back, it’ll have to be through the likes of McCain, Guiliani, Schwarzenegger and the principled conservative wing of the party. Not Bush. The Democratic leadership will help in this as well, particularly when they start outlining their “solutions” to things. The American public won’t be able to stomach much of Pelosi’s unfiltered liberalism, and I don’t think she’ll be able to tamp it down for long. I also predict that the Dems won’t be able to help themselves by overplaying the vengeance card, which won’t go over well.

  95. The American public won’t be able to stomach much of Pelosi’s unfiltered liberalism, and I don’t think she’ll be able to tamp it down for long.
    According to polls, Nancy Pelosi is mainstream. You may not be able to stomach much of the American public’s unfiltered liberalism, but that is supposed to be what democracy is all about…

  96. Treating the Republicans exactly as they treated the Democratic minority would presumably count as “overplaying the vengeance card”? I agree that’s going to be a hard temptation to resist. But the public doesn’t really care about that, apparently — then again, the Republicans are better about getting their outrage into the media, so probably the usual IOKIYAR rules will apply.

  97. The Democrats don’t have to seek revenge on the Republicans…all they have to do is run the House the way it was designed to be run and it will seem like they’re seeking revenge to the administration. In other words, oversight, legislation, and investigations of suspicious activity. That’s their job, and that’s all it will take to make Bush and Co. feel like they’re in hell.
    My hope for the Democrats is that they simply do their jobs.

  98. It’s a relief that finally Waxman will be able to spend a few hundred thousand hours and several hundred Congressional hours to determine, once and for all, that President Bush spent $150 more to hop to a carrier on a jet instead of by helicopter.
    This attitudes exemplifies why your Republican heroes refuse to do oversight on countless examples of graft and theft — the best example is the billions being blown in Iraq for which the Republcians set up systems that deliberately block oversight and accountability. They are too busy worrying about alleged bogus oversight to actual believe in doing it at all.
    In other words, ignore historically high levels of graft while whining about potential excesses by Waxman, which by the way have not happened in the past and for which there is no basis other than prejudice to assume it will happen in the future.

  101. It appears that my wish for a Democratic Party-controlled House and a narrow Senate majority one way or another may have arrived. Hooray divided government.

  103. ignore historically high levels of graft
    Where? Jefferson’s freezer? Certainly some examples of where Waxman is heroically chasing down said historically high levels of graft might be interesting, though.
    while whining about potential excesses by Waxman
    It was a joke. Possibly not all that funny, but a joke nonetheless.
    Probably this isn’t a good place to ask if Congressman Unindicted Co-conspirator will become the new Majority Leader.

  104. Edward_!!
    great to hear from you!
    And I like your formula for the task ahead of the Democratic Congress: do the job of Congress, which includes legislation, investigation, and oversight.
    Which leads to my next question:
    would hilzoy have any interest in proposing a list of priorities for the new Congress? What really needs doing, and why? If she did, I’d be interested in reading it.

  106. Possibly not all that funny, but a joke nonetheless.
    The joke about how you’ve always opposed the Republicans was funnier, IMO. Surprise-reaction gets a laugh where saying exactly what we expect you to say doesn’t, see…

  107. If they had only listened to me and actually governed as conservatives, communicated as conservatives and prosecuted Iraq as conservatives, then Republicans wouldn’t be where they are today.
    Could you be more specific? It seems to me that had they governed as conservatives they would have had to be fiscally responsible, for example. That would have meant no tax cuts or large reductions in spending. Would either of those have been popular?
    Prosecuting Iraq “like conservatives” means what? I take it to mean prosecuting it intelligently, which would, among other things have meant much greater troop commitments and costs. Would that have been popular?
    (Of course one could argue that prosecuting Iraq like a conservative might have meant not invading at all, on the grounds that drastic actions ought to be undertaken only when the case for them is overwhelming, and that it is best to be very cautious otherwise.)

  108. Happy Birthday, Katherine!
    Things look better this morning than they did last night; here in California the candidates mostly fell as I’d hoped. (Radondovich wasn’t going to happen, however much I dreamed– though even he was down to 60% without serious opposition.)
    The initiatives weren’t too bad– several I wanted to pass were voted down, but that just means they’ll come up again in a different form another year. Our parental notification went down, which surprised me– and our “punish sex offenders at great expense for life” initiative passed by a margin that makes me sad. Still, the morning was much better than I’d expected when I turned in last night.

  109. while whining about potential excesses by Waxman
    It was a joke. Possibly not all that funny, but a joke nonetheless.
    Well, glad to hear it was a joke and I’ll calm down, though I agree with the unfunny part. I do believe that we have an opporutnity to climb out of a hell hole of graft due to Republican control, and just don’t think the subject is funny. And unlike so many other Contgrescritters, Waxman does not merit that level of ridicule.

  111. The joke about how you’ve always opposed the Republicans was funnier
    If you can pull that one out and share, I’ll be the judge of how funny straw-me is.

  114. Slarti: It was a joke. Possibly not all that funny, but a joke nonetheless.
    The joke about your always having supported the Republicans was funnier, though, because the human surprise-reaction often comes out as laughter. A “joke” where someone says exactly what people expect them to say is seldom as funny as a reversal.
    Further analysis of humor (and humour, which is like humor but with an extra “u” and more irony) in the next Monty Python open thread.

  115. If you can pull that one out and share, I’ll be the judge of how funny straw-me is.
    Straw-you posted on this thread, November 08, 2006 at 07:13 AM. Is straw-you the same kind of person as pre-coffee me?

  116. Given that all of this is going on only between your ears, Jesurgislac, you’re going to have to share more fully so that I can appreciate the humor.

  118. And clearly post-coffee me isn’t much better than pre-coffee me, as it was the joke about Slartibartfast always having opposed the Republicans that was funny.
    Never mind. I’m off to a party. Will raise a glass of wine to and with all of you, either in celebration or in commiseration. 😉

  120. ScottM: I am quite curious about what other people in this forum would think of the sex offender bill in CA. It was basically two things: (1) GPS for life (2) residency restrictions which kicked you out of most all urban areas. It passed 70 / 30, I think, without anyone spending money in its advocacy.

  122. I was not in much of a “eat crow” mood; there are too many depressing messes to clean up, and I agree with Edward’s comment that all that Dems need to do is run things right which will have as a byproduct sticking it to Bush and crew. And I vastly prefer getting it right as the means of sticking it to anybody.
    That is, until I read this.
    Yesterday’s results can be laid squarely on Bush and, to a much lesser degree, Hastert. If they had only listened to me and actually governed as conservatives, communicated as conservatives and prosecuted Iraq as conservatives, then Republicans wouldn’t be where they are today.
    Yesterday’s results can also be laid squarely at the feet of Republicans like Charles Bird who have supported modern conservatives with a vengance while they compiled an awful record. I thought these guys represented the Party of Ideas, whereas your new Democratic overlords were just the Party of No?
    Its too late to play the rebranding game for modern conservatism. Failure here is the direct result of the policies of modern conservatism, and the people who vociferously supported it despite glaring defects. Conservatism needs to clean its own ideological house, and it cannot do so by pretending that its leadership was not “true conservatives.”
    And this is too rich. If we’re going to get back, it’ll have to be through the likes of McCain, Guiliani, Schwarzenegger and the principled conservative wing of the party.
    McCain — more hard right than Bush and now completely over the loony edge (send more troops to Iraq, which will magically appear because young people will hear the call). Guiliani, who has no discernible principles and has zero chance in Republican primaries (if McCain was sunk by push polling about his wrong color baby, what will happen to Giuliani with his pictures in drag?); Schwarzenegger — he’s still a Republican (with a Democrat as chief of staff and his message of collabaration with Dems)?
    As for the principled conservative wing of the party, I would like to see it re-emerge. Funny how these years made us Dems long for reasonable Republicans rather than the current crew. Unfortunately, the Republican Party is facing a long season of bloodletting between its internal contradictions, and it will be interesting to see if it can reform itself rather than continue its corrupt ways.

  123. Yeah, probably Rummy, plus someone just arrived at the W.H. coming up 17th st., which is how Rumsfeld would arrive if he was driven over from the Pentagon (I think).

  128. I’m not convinced that what we are seeing in the Bush Administration isn’t applied conservatism in its most unvarnished form. Reagan has a lot of constraints that this President doesn’t have, and he still managed to sell arms to terrorists and fight a counterproductive war on drugs and fund space-based missile defense boondoggles and rack up enormous budget deficits and what-not. These were expensive projects with some disastrous real-world consequences. Imagine if he’d had a much weaker enemy, foggier memories of the Vietnam quagmire, and a rubber stamp congress.

  129. Bush is resigning, leaving us in the hands of President Cheney?
    Bush AND Cheney resign, leaving us with President Pelosi?
    Can you imagine the heads exploding as one across the country? 🙂

  135. Bush AND Cheney resign, leaving us with President Pelosi?
    Ummm….not possible until the new Congress, Steve.

  137. wait–
    you mean Rumsfeld is going to cut and run?
    And there I thought he was different from those loser-defeatist Defeatocrats.

  139. From KCinDC:

    Treating the Republicans exactly as they treated the Democratic minority would presumably count as “overplaying the vengeance card”?

    You didn’t get the memo that explained how it’s only fair when the GOP does it?
    Happy birthday, Katherine!
    And now, to get to the really short answer to jjf’s question: Moe, the sadly-departed founder of this blog, is a fan of the game In Nomine, which is about the war between Heaven and Hell. One type of angel in the game have wings that are as black as obsidian. IIRC, he chose the name as a callback to that.

  141. “After a series of thoughtful conversations, Secretary Rumsfeld and I have decided the time is right for new leadership.”
    And I wish I’d placed a bet that Bush would describe him as “superb”. Actually, he used the word earlier in talking about the Democrats’ campaigns, I think.

  146. Edward_, I’m not sure at all that he has. It sounds like the bubble is still very strong. He’s “committed to victory”, even if it’s not possible.
    He blew off the question about how “changing the tone” fitted with claiming that electing Democrats means “terrorists win”.

  147. “As the vice president was just saying, —” BLEEEEP
    Maybe that was just on the NPR feed, but it’s not surprising Cheney would say something bleepable.

  148. Watching him struggle, KCinDC, I think you might be right. He’s so all over the place, he doesn’t have the conviction so someone who’s had an epiphany.
    It is hard to watch and think we’re going to be ok…he’s a trainwreck.

  150. so how soon does he get a medal?
    Will he get the same one Tenet got, or an even more super-dee-duper one?
    Ah hell.
    Somehow my schadenfreude runs out when I think about all of our American troops he allowed to get killed, and all of the Iraqis who have died, and Afghanistan still not secure, and Osama still laughing, and Iran stronger than ever.
    Sorry–I’ll get back to gloating in a bit. But as it happens, there really *are* people I hate more than Bush and Rumsfeld–people like al Qaeda and the fundamentalist mullahs of Iran.
    And part of why I hate Bush and Rumsfeld so much is because they have done so much to help Al Qaeda and the mullahs.

  152. So far, the Dow isn’t quite sure what to make of this. Down about 35, and oscillating, but not trending in either direction.

  153. He thought that “in the end the American people would understand the importance of taxes and the importance of security”. Apparently they just don’t understand and he needs to yell at them a bit more to get them to come around.

  154. tee hee.
    what a glorious (overcast, 60, light rain, breezy) day.
    The despair in the comments to that post is, as you say, truly glorious.

  155. Slartibartfast: It’s a relief that finally Waxman will be able to spend a few hundred thousand hours and several hundred Congressional hours to determine, once and for all, that President Bush spent $150 more to hop to a carrier on a jet instead of by helicopter.
    The hearings will deal almost entirely with amounts in six to nine figures. The president is unlikely to figure largely in the proceedings. Names like Parsons, Bechtel, Halliburton/KBR, Titan will feature.
    With both houses in Democratic hands, it should be an early priority and relatively simple matter to restore the office and funding for Stuart Bowen, ‘reconstruction’ IG, before next October (when the Republican congressional leadership / criminal syndicate had decreed he’d be gone).
    Those who want to follow the proceedings in an informed way might want to take a look at Blood Money, an L.A. Times reporter’s book on the looting spree of 2002-6.

  156. People who watch this press conference around the wold must wonder how we ever elected this guy as President. Wait a minute, they have been wondering that for a while. (Jes, please no arguing over the word elected).
    I lost track over how many times he contradicted himself. Plus he basically admitted that he really didn’t mean the things he said about Democrats during the campaign. It would be nice if the media pointed that out.
    Of course, given this adminsitrations to put national security at risk in order to win some votes, his explanation for why he didn’t bring this up before the election rings hollow. And actually, I think it would have helped some of the races if he had done this before the election. The Republicans might still have obvious control of the Senate.

  157. I loved this one:
    “I think he resigned because he did not want to preside over the impending destruction of US military forces and the coming disgrace of his country.”
    Beyond surreal.

  158. Sorry, it was supposed to read “given this administration’s willingness to put national security at risk.”

  159. Nell,
    “The hearings will deal almost entirely with amounts in six to nine figures.”
    I sincerely hope not. If the hearings deal with matters from the hundreds of thousands to hundreds of millions, it leaves out far too many items in Iraq and Katrina, both of which stretch to the billions”
    “The president is unlikely to figure largely in the proceedings.”
    I also hope not there, too.

  162. A note on exit polls. Here are the figures from hilzoy’s post, compared to actual results:
    Exit polls Actual
    “Dem leads:
    VA: 52-47 50-49
    RI: 53-46 53-47
    PA: 57-42 59-41
    OH: 57-43 56-44
    NJ: 52-45 53-45
    MT: 53-46 49-48
    MO: 50-48 50-47
    MD: 53-46 54-44
    GOPer leads:
    TN: 51-48 51-48
    AZ: 50-46 53-44
    Not bad. Only VA, MT and AZ seem badly off, and MT has a libertarian candidate who drew 3% rather than the 1% suggested by the poll. Maybe libertarians are more unwilling than most to repond to exit pollsters.

  163. Yes, I noticed that CNN’s clonegirl “blog specialist” spent about a minute or less with Christy from FireDogLake, then went over to fawn over the sneery Krempasky, who was full of unctuous gloat over the Lieberman results in CT, and snark at the “extremist” blogs who had been foolish enough to predict a Democratic “wave”. Which of course, they had, everywhere else but CT. As Kinky Friedman would say… what a putz!

  165. Oops; by ‘nine figures’ I meant billions. The expression I was looking for was ‘nine zeroes’.
    As to Bush himself: Just making clear the connection of the looters to the Republican political machine is enough for me. And Cheney’s far more important to tie to the corruption than Bush.

  167. W in T F H are they smoking over there?
    Up until today, pole. It’s as if all of a sudden they woke up after Rummy’s resignation and went “how the f**k did the President’s c**k get in my mouth?!!?”

  169. Uncle Jimbo of Blackfive isn’t impressed (to say the least):

    I’m done, W is dead to me. I don’t hold with most of the criticisms of W and Rummy, but this debacle cost our entire country and I no longer believe that Bush is capable of leading us, well me for sure. This administration has been nowhere near as incompetent as portrayed by the media and the left, but there have been too many screw ups and too little success. As always, I reserve the right to retract or revise my BS statements once I cool down. IDIOT!

    Heh.

  172. One wonders if Cheney is next (though I would imagine it wouldn’t be for a few months). He and Rummy go back a long way, and with Rummy gone Cheney may be under siege and leave (and hopefully take all of the moles he’s planted in the executive branch with him).

  175. Yeah, like I’m fully caught up on sleep and blog reading after yesterday. Forgot to grep on “Bizarro” as well as “Red State”…
    Just found out one of my coworkers would be in favor of President Cheney.

  176. Greenwald on today’s press conference: I’m wondering if there is a greater irony, ever, than the President lecturing the media about how the election was so close, and as a result, the American people expect them to work together “to get stuff done.”
    Yeah, coming from Mr. 49%, it is sadly funny.

  177. I have a pet agenda for the Democratic party in the House that actually does boil down to one word:
    Auditing.
    Good audits require information, and standards for evaluating what you find out. The Republican Party’s leadership turned its back on both.

  179. OK – you folks are in charge. I have been going back and forth on my vote today, but all in all I’m happy. You have one and maybe both. Now I hope to see you lead.
    I hope to see some serious ethics rules. I hope you weed out all corruption in both parties.
    I hope to see a serious and reasonable plan for Iraq. Don’t disappoint me with redeployment to Okinawa.
    I hope to see real oversight without pure obstructionism. Have the hearings you need to. If you embark on a witch-hunt I will be sorely disappointed.
    I hope to see advice and consent taken seriously. If you are obstructionist there I will be sorely disappointed.
    I hope to see responsible tax policies – I’ll split the difference with you.
    I really, really hope to see an improvement in Homeland Security – if you can do anything to improve the situation at the ports, chemical and nuclear plans – I’ll applaud you.
    I’ll be around. I will hound you if you disappoint me 🙂

  181. First, happy birthday Katherine! Well done survivoring another orbit around the sun!
    Second, to the federal election results: wow. Got dang near everything I’d hoped for. Amazing.
    Third, to Slarti’s question upthread:
    I’m not seeing too much mention of the gay-marriage-ban amendments passed in more than one state; anyone got the up and up on that?
    I can’t speak much to the issue, but I was shell-shocked at how decisively that amendment was voted up in Wisconsin. 59-41 was the final count, I think, and this despite a large-scale ground effort on the part of FAIR Wisconsin (20 branch offices over the state, IIRC) to GOTV against it. What’s particularly interesting to me are the following tidbits:
    * Most of the people I’ve talked to and read insisted that the marriage amendment did not deprive anyone of civil rights. It’s possible that this is simple because people don’t regard marriage as a civil right; I think it’s more probably that most people never read the dang thing. I know for a fact that I hadn’t seen the actual text of the amendment until I was in the voting booth (although I knew almost exactly what it said) since the full text was rarely invoked.
    Said text, btw, is:

    “Marriage. Shall section 13 of article XIII of the constitution be created to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state and that a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state?”

    * The marriage amendment went down 59-41 but the Democrats won almost all the putatively close races, the only major exception being the AG race where Kathleen Falk lost to JB Van Hollen by a narrow margin (8000 votes out of 2 million, roughly what Webb has over Allen). Jim Doyle, the supposedly imperilled Democratic governor, stomped his competition 53-45. Steve Kagen beat John Gard in the WI-08 by about three points. The real question is then: who were all the people who voted for the marriage amendment and then turned around to vote for Doyle?
    * Even weirder: only two counties in the whole of Wisconsin voted against the marriage amendment, one being Dane County (wherein resides Madison, aka Sodom On The Lake) and the other being one of the western counties. In particular: both Milwaukee and Green Bay voted for the amendment in aggregate… even though they were overwhelmingly Democratic on all other measures.
    * So much so that I think the Democrats took back the Wisconsin State Assembly and Senate, although I can’t seem to find the election results online to confirm it. I’ll keep checking periodically, though.
    * In addition to the marriage amendment, we also voted up a death penalty amendment that is… worrying, and similarly considered to split along fairly clear partisan lines. Are there correlations between support for the marriage amendment and the death penalty amendment? It’s not clear whether this is a case of a tectonic shift in Wisconsin politics, of a sizeable split along social lines not usually considered, of a massive disinformation campaign, or any of a million other options.

  183. I thought these guys represented the Party of Ideas, whereas your new Democratic overlords were just the Party of No?
    Exactly, dm. The election was about repudiation, specifically Bush’s performance re Iraq. In this election, “no” happened to be enough.
    Its too late to play the rebranding game for modern conservatism.
    What rebranding? Bush didn’t govern as a conservative, and Congress didn’t spend money as conservatives, “modern” or otherwise.

  187. OCSteve,
    I’m looking (hoping?) for a lot of the same things.
    Still, I’m afraid that a “a serious and reasonable plan for Iraq” is a non-existent object, and that we may differ on what constitutes a witch-hunt, or obstructionism, rather than a reasonable investigation or sensible opposition.
    Regardless, I agree that the Democrats are now in position to accomplish at least some positive things, and share your hope that they take advantage of the opportunity.

  188. AP says Webb wins Virginia:

    The new AP count showed Webb with 1,172,538 votes and Allen with 1,165,302, a difference of 7,236. Virginia has had two statewide vote recounts in modern history, but both resulted in vote changes of no more than a few hundred votes.
    An adviser to Allen, speaking on condition of anonymity because his boss had not formally decided to end the campaign, said the senator wanted to wait until most of canvassing was completed before announcing his decision, possibly as early as Thursday evening.
    The adviser said that Allen was disinclined to request a recount if the final vote spread was similar to that of election night.

  190. Charles:
    Before indulging the usual tit-for-tat, let me suggest that you write a post about a reaffirmation of conservative values that would set the Republican Party straight — that would provoke some interesting conversation around here.
    What rebranding? Bush didn’t govern as a conservative, and Congress didn’t spend money as conservatives, “modern” or otherwise.
    Who, then, are the conservatives, if not the entire leadership of the Republican Party that is 100% responsible for this alleged non-conservative policy?
    I understand your broader point, but your definition of “conservative” happens to not include the leadership of the Republican Party. Where was McCain, Giuliani or any other alleged principled Republican during the last six years, if not largely in support of Bush policy?
    Its an awful convenient thing to just defrock these conservatives, and thereby claim that conservatism remains a viable set of principles because these failures were not perpetrated by “real” conservatives. Yes, the sorry mess may be a deviation from a fantasy land ideal of what conservatives allegedly are, but the fact remains that these avowed conservatives are 100% responsible for the train wreck.
    Just maybe their conservative ideology had something to do with that — that the ideals were willingly sacraficed in service of power. I don’t know if John Dean’s recent book has it right (Conservatives Without a Conscience), but it is an interesting point of view on this question.

  191. dmb: I forget who originally said that the Republicans were eventually going to adopt the old Marxist line that Marxism hasn’t failed; it has never actually been tried, since every single allegedly Marxist state didn’t actually adopt Marxism in its pure form at all! — but whoever it was was right.

  192. The netroots are embracing the idea of getting rid of William “Cold Cash” Jefferson before the new Congress by supporting his opponent, Karen Carter (also a Democrat), in the December 9 runoff.

  193. OCSteve: I hope to see some serious ethics rules. I hope you weed out all corruption in both parties.
    Well, IMO weeding out all corruption from US politics (hell, from any nation’s politics) is too big a job for two years. But, subpoaena powers… (I have a major problem spelling subpaena, btw. I keep having to google it. When I don’t, this is the kind of thing I come up with.) Corruption is more rife among Republicans in Congress than among Democrats, for the simple horrible reason that for 12 years, the politicians worth bribing have been Republicans. So, I hope that Republicans will not protest that Democrats are being partisan because most of the corruption being exposed and investigated is in the Republican party.
    I hope to see a serious and reasonable plan for Iraq. Don’t disappoint me with redeployment to Okinawa.
    I think that a serious and reasonable plan for Iraq is to fire Rumsfeld, fire Bolton, appoint a reasonable Sec’y of Defense (someone tainted by Iran/Contra is probably not the best choice, but who expects the best choice from Bush?), appoint a decent UN ambassador, go to the UN, and do some serious begging. There is now a civil war in Iraq, thanks to Bush, and the US military is just one of the factions, thanks to Bush: a serious and reasonable plan may well include removing one of the factions to the US where that faction, at least, can do no more harm. Of course, a truly serious and reasonable plan would have included firing Bush, but in 2004 there wasn’t enough of a landslide for that to overcome the vote-rigging, as there was this year.
    I hope to see real oversight without pure obstructionism. Have the hearings you need to. If you embark on a witch-hunt I will be sorely disappointed.
    I suspect (though I hope otherwise) that the hearings that will need to happen will be called a “witch hunt” – there will be a lot of them, I hope – and after six years of unchecked power, the Bush administration will call Congress’s right to oversight pure obstructionism. I hope that reasonable Republicans like you will not agree with Bush & co.
    I hope to see advice and consent taken seriously. If you are obstructionist there I will be sorely disappointed.
    I hope to see advice and consent taken seriously too – by Bush & Co. But, when he is obstructionist, I won’t be sorely disappointed: that’s what I expect. I hope thar Republicans won’t call Congress exercising its right to check Bush’s power “obstructionism”.
    I hope to see responsible tax policies – I’ll split the difference with you.
    I hope for that too, but I don’t hold out much hope that Republicans will agree on what’s responsible. 😉
    I really, really hope to see an improvement in Homeland Security – if you can do anything to improve the situation at the ports, chemical and nuclear plants – I’ll applaud you.
    Total agreement there. I hope when Bush is obstructionist about this, you’ll condemn him.
    And one happy thing that just occurred to me yesterday evening:
    The odds of war with Iran just went down. A lot.

  194. Does Madison still have a street with the honorific title “The Ho Chi Minh Trail”?
    It does indeed! Although I’m one of the few people who still use that term.

  195. I forget who originally said that the Republicans were eventually going to adopt the old Marxist line that Marxism hasn’t failed; it has never actually been tried, since every single allegedly Marxist state didn’t actually adopt Marxism in its pure form at all! — but whoever it was was right.
    digby’s been the most prominent proponent of that view, though I don’t know whether s/he originated it.

  196. “the old Marxist line that Marxism hasn’t failed”
    I let it slide, turned off the computer, and then had to come back. Marxism was an amazing success. Now yes, you can give Marx and Engels some of the blame for the horrors of the communistic states.
    But it is entirely possible to imagine a capitalism without democracy or social welfare safety nets. And Marx and Engels in the second half of the 19th century are almost by themselves responsible for parliamentary socialism and the self-concious labor movement. Socialism around 1870 was dominated by Utopians and violent anarchists and Marx/Engels made socialism political, and politically plausible. They also moved labor organization out of crafts and skills, and into unskilled factory labor and other areas like transport. Their acolytes and heretics like Kautsky and Bernstein and Lenin and Mao went in various directions, but all were indebted to Marx and Engels.
    PS:Last night I read Veblen on Marx, who of course sees influences of Hegel and Ricardo, but very interestingly connects Marx to the English natural rights philosophers, especially Locke and somebody called William Thompson, who I had never heard of. Also Bentham.
    But Veblen says Marx simply took Locke’s “A person has the right to the fruit of their labor.” and developed it seriously.

  198. Bob: yes.
    The problem with Marxism is the problem that feminism has: after a sufficient time has passed, people take for granted as “normal” the rights for workers that have been won by Marxism, the rights for women that have been won by feminism, and stop thinking of them as radical and unfriendly and infringement on the rights of the rich to do as they please or the rights of men to do as they like with women. Come to that, it’s the same problem any really successful radical movement has: it took, what, a century or so for being anti-slavery in the US to be a radical political stance that made you automatically unrespectable and suspect to being a default political stance.
    There was a phrase in the British lexicon in the 1940s: “prematurely anti-Fascist”, to describe people who were radical enough to recognise that Hitler and Mussolini and Franco were major threats before the UK was officially at war with them. Men who had gone to fight in Spain on the Government side weren’t allowed to enlist, initially, and were not permitted commissions (I’m not sure how long that lasted, but certainly into the 1940s) because their being prematurely anti-Fascist meant they were deemed untrustworthy…
    It may be that communism is unworkable for large states without at least a modicum of private enterprise (when I was in China in 2001, one of our guides noted that food for sale got noticeably better once the peasant farmers who produce it were allowed to sell a percentage of it on the market (the government bought a percentage at a fixed price, and of course the farmers keep a percentage for their own use). But it’s likewise certain that unfettered capitalism is unlivable-with for most people: there must be a modicum of state control. It’s a question of balance…

  201. I hope that reasonable Republicans like you will not agree with Bush & co.
    Unreasonable = impeachment proceedings. I was against it with Clinton, and I would be against it here. (Yes, I know that a BJ is not the same thing as a war, NSA surveillance, etc.) There are just no grounds. I know you think otherwise, and I am sure you would love to see it, but there is just no there there. Besides, it would totally destroy any chances for Dems in 08. Almost anything else is fair game, especially if it involves “where the heck did all that money go”. BTW – please don’t call me a Republican. Call me a conservative – or even an asshat –just not that 😉
    Bolton – I think he has been most effective. Beg the UN? If nothing else Jes, you have started my day off with a good belly laugh 🙂 Dismantle the UN – now you are talking… If there is one organization on this planet I view as more corrupt and ineffective than this last congress – it is the UN.
    Total agreement there. I hope when Bush is obstructionist about this, you’ll condemn him.
    I’ve been condemning him on that point since 2002. Terrorists don’t need any expensive and complicated schemes. They can walk across our open borders (or ride an elephant across accompanied by a mariachi band), walk into a chemical plant, open a few valves, and kill thousands of people.

  202. OCSteve: Unreasonable = impeachment proceedings. I was against it with Clinton, and I would be against it here. (Yes, I know that a BJ is not the same thing as a war, NSA surveillance, etc.) There are just no grounds. I know you think otherwise, and I am sure you would love to see it, but there is just no there there.
    How do you know that, for sure, before any Congressional investigation into Bush’s malfeasance has been carried out?
    Answer, if you’re reasonable: you don’t know it – you just want to believe that Bush has done nothing that would warrant impeachment. But, if the Congressional investigation that I trust will take place over the next two years uncovers evidence such that 50 Democratic Senators, 16 Republican Senators and Joe Lieberman agree that Bush has committed crimes that warrant impeachment, will you unreasonably stick your heels in and go “There are just no grounds!” Of course not. (At least, I hope not.)

  203. Jes:
    Even if you believe his actions rise to the level of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”, there is no way that 2/3 of the Senate will. I personally don’t believe 2/3 of Democratic Senators would vote that way.
    So it would be a show trial, and there would be significant backlash against the Democrats. I will be truly surprised if that is how they choose to spend the next 2 years.

  204. I meant to respond to Slarti’s inquiry about the same-sex marriage bans.
    The first, most fundamental thing to understand about these ballot questions is that their main purpose was to ensure the turnout of religious-right and conservative voters, and thus elect/re-elect Republicans.
    Despite the hefty margin by which voters passed Virginia’s constitutional amendment, the most sweeping of any on offer Tuesday, it failed in its most important objective — re-electing George Allen. Without the amendment, Webb would have won by at least 51-49 and quite possibly more.
    It did succeed on the level of Congressional races: the Democratic challenger with the best prospects, Phil Kellam, was swamped by the Pat Robertson-organized turnout in Virginia Beach.
    Democrats may retake our state legislature three years from now. At some point after that — maybe it’ll take another four or five years — Virginia voters will overturn the constitutional amendment passed this week.
    Maybe it will take ten or fifteen years, but it’ll happen. For now, we have the ugly spectacle of an amendment (to the Bill of Rights [!] portion of our consitution) that enshrines discrimination.
    On the other hand, the issue is dead dead dead for now, and therefore unavailable to the Republicans as an electoral club. But hey, the toolchest isn’t empty: there’s still racism, fear-mongering, bribes, voter intimidation, smears, and lies…
    And before anyone points out that those things didn’t work for George Allen, I’d ask you to consider that they almost did. I’m proud of Jim Webb, and I’m proud of the million-plus Virginians who elected him. But I’m saddened by the reality that it was such a close thing.

  205. OCSteve: Even if you believe his actions rise to the level of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”, there is no way that 2/3 of the Senate will.
    Again: how do you know that before any investigation has taken place? You appear to want certainty in advance of facts.
    I will be truly surprised if that is how they choose to spend the next 2 years.
    So will I. What should happen over the next two years is a thorough investigation of the Bush administration’s various dodgy activities – and it sounds as if that’s exactly what Speaker Pelosi has in mind.
    You have faith that this thorough investigation will not turn up the kind of evidence that will convince 67 Senators that Bush has to be impeached. But your certainty is based on faith, not reason.

  206. OCSteve, a show trial is one in which the outcome is a foregone conclusion, in which the people doing the trying have all the power. That’s incompatible with your description of a Congress in which sentiment for impeachment falls way below the votes required.

  207. And before anyone points out that those things didn’t work for George Allen, I’d ask you to consider that they almost did. I’m proud of Jim Webb, and I’m proud of the million-plus Virginians who elected him. But I’m saddened by the reality that it was such a close thing.

    It’s possible that the vote shows less of a run from conservatism as disgust with the current batch of pols. That’s nothing more than a suspicion; I wouldn’t expect anyone to believe it.
    Which is not to say that “conservative” and “anti-gay-marriage” are either one a wholly contained subset of the other, but there is a trend there. In any event, at least ten percent of Webb voters also voted to ban gay marriage, so the measure served to get out the D vote to some extent as well.
    I have no idea how to explain Wisconsin, other than as an object lesson showing how widely varied Democrats can be.

  208. I suppose I could point to the polls. I don’t think exit polls are in general all that accurate, but some data is usually better than no data.
    Summary: Republicans voted for pretty strongly (~85%), about a third of Democrats voted for, and half of Independents voted for. In both states.

  210. a show trial is one in which the outcome is a foregone conclusion, in which the people doing the trying have all the power
    But your certainty is based on faith, not reason.
    Right on both counts. Let me rephrase – it is my belief that any hearings would not uncover evidence that would rise to the level of impeachment.
    I do not believe that the Democrats will go there. They need to focus on retaining control in 08. They need to find an elect-able presidential candidate. It is my belief that impeachment proceedings would seriously harm both of those efforts, so just out of self interest they will not go there.

  211. As an initial response to the line that Charles and many other conservatives now push – that the failures of the Bush administration shouldn’t be taken as yet another demonstration that conservatism is in fact not a viable philosophy of government – I’ll point to a piece I know has been pointed at before here. Rick Perlstein points out that Goldwater supporters became Nixon’s administration. They weren’t replaced, and if they were corrupted, they did it to themselves. And then the same thing happened with the idealists in Reagan’s administration, and then with the campaigners for thought purity in the current administration.
    Conservativism corrupts its holders when they’re allowed into power. Because its tenets require rejecting so many basic human wants and needs, it leaves its adherents unguarded in the face of practical realities of governance. They may luck into positions of power like Rumsfeld and Cheney’s that let them simply deny reality altogether as things collapse. Most will end up in positions where, lacking any useful ethical foundation, they become willing and then eager to do anything.
    And this is not a thing that happens at the fringes of the movement, but at the center. It’s happened in three very different administrations across almost half a century, and as a problem it’s been institutionalized in groups like the Young Republicans and sub-movements like the political evangelical movement. Goldwater conservatism has been tested and failed, repeatedly. It is not a suitable foundation for government of the United States. The failures of Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Jr. are failures of conservativsm implemented.
    Liberals have learned some necessary lessons from administrations back to Johnson and beyond, and the result is a set of views that is both popular and feasible. Until conservatives accept their failures as evidence of problems in the ideas, not just the people, they won’t be able to do the same.

  212. OCSteve: Let me rephrase – it is my belief that any hearings would not uncover evidence that would rise to the level of impeachment.
    Fair enough. And we share the belief that there should be a thorough investigation regardless.
    . They need to focus on retaining control in 08. They need to find an elect-able presidential candidate.
    Well, no. They found an elect-able Presidential candidate in 2000, and very probably in 2004. What they need to focus on is making sure that the 2008 elections are honest – ending the Republican shenanigans with voter-suppression and election-rigging,
    It is my belief that impeachment proceedings would seriously harm both of those efforts, so just out of self interest they will not go there.
    Not if the evidence is found. I think (if I had anything to say about it!) that Congress should be both investigating past actions by the Bush administration which have not had proper oversight, and doing so thoroughly (and moving to impeachment if 67 Senators agree that’s the only appropriate response to the crimes discovered); and should be working to make sure that, after 2000 and 2004, the next time a Democratic President is elected by the voters, he (or she!) isn’t prevented from taking office, as we know happened in 2000, and we guess happened in 2004.

  213. “Conservativism corrupts its holders when they’re allowed into power. Because its tenets require rejecting so many basic human wants and needs, it leaves its adherents unguarded in the face of practical realities of governance. They may luck into positions of power like Rumsfeld and Cheney’s that let them simply deny reality altogether as things collapse. Most will end up in positions where, lacking any useful ethical foundation, they become willing and then eager to do anything.”
    The last sentence strips away your argument. If you mean that conservatives don’t have an ethical foundation you are deeply wrong in a difficult-to-bother-talking-with-you way. If that is your belief, you are just a fundamentalist with a different set of beliefs. I’ll continue the conversation under the assumption that isn’t your belief though if it is, please tell me so I won’t need to continue it later.
    If you mean that they don’t have an ethical foundation useful for governance the disagreement is probably on what you mean by “useful for governance”. This seems like it may be related to “Because its tenets require rejecting so many basic human wants and needs, it leaves its adherents unguarded in the face of practical realities of governance.” This is a rather broad misreading of conservative political understanding. Conservatism doesn’t reject human wants and needs, it focuses on different ones in different ways. It believes that teaching someone to fish is more important than giving them fish. It believes that giving people everything they say they want isn’t necessarily the best way to have long term growth in an economy and in their character.
    The basic flaw in conservatism as practiced in the US since 1994 is giving in to pork projects to try to maintain Congressional power. That violates a tenet of government conservatism and causes a huge problem. That principle, once betrayed, opens up a whole host of corruption possibilites. The corruption is nasty, but for a conservative the proper place to attack it is earlier than “am I letting a special interest influence this pork project”. It should be “why am I betraying the principles I espoused by doing a pork project?”

  214. Jes at 6:20
    Somewhat cryptically, “women of ideas and what men have done to them”
    Uhh, Jes, click thru my first Thompson link at 5:09. it is the Sunshine for Women historical site. After you have read the article, if you still think it is oppressive of women to call Thompson one of the “earliest of feminists” than I presume I am not welcome on your side either.

  215. At this point, I don’t see what impeachment gets you that investigation doesn’t. Big political downside, no real substantive upside.
    I’m really glad about the Senate because it means that Leahy and Levin are going to do some of the high profile investigations….Conyers is a little much even for me.

  217. “I don’t see what impeachment gets you that investigation doesn’t”
    I mostly agree, for some very vicious and partisan reasons. I would rather see a lot of little fish eaten, Captains and field officers, so the people understand the price of misplaced loyalty. Hundreds to thousands of little fish.
    But 1) If Bush is found with a naked dead woman in the Oval Office, it is very wrong to have given your word that there would be no possibility of impeachment.
    2) I don’t think it is Pelosi’s call to make, entirely on her own and unquestionable. If Dems are going tp allow Republicans to offer floor amendments, which I think is a disastrous error, then she could show just a slight amount of respect for the judgement of Conyers and her fellow Democratic members

  218. Re McManus’ comments about Marxism’s successful influence on our economic and social-safety net policies:
    Conservative Republicans, most notably Steven Forbes, made exactly this point after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall, with an opposite stress, of course.
    He said the New Deal and subsequent programs were implemented to blunt the urge for revolution in the United States, and now that the Soviet Union no longer was around as a threat, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the IRS, and much of the rest of the government could be swept away without fear of social consequences.
    As if the population, thinking food stamps was Leonid Brezhnev’s idea, would return to some sort of natural, monolithic docility after a certain date. Right.
    A guy can be in favor of Social Security without going along with starvation in the Ukraine.
    Sebastian:
    Pork, strictly defined, accounts for maybe $35 billion of the Federal budget. And sometimes pork, despite its origins in special interest needs, turns out to work for the common good. Yes, much is corrupt.
    The central problem for conservatism since 1994 is, in my mind, that they expected to go rampant in Steve Forbes’ direction; something that would make even much of their social conservative/economic conservative base into Democrats.
    True, teach everyone to fish. But sometimes you need to use federal money to build the lake, maintain the stream, and stock the waters with the fish. Then you have worm sudsidization and pollution regulations to keep the heavy metals out of the fish.
    Might be cheaper and more honest just to starve. 😉

  219. But 1) If Bush is found with a naked dead woman in the Oval Office, it is very wrong to have given your word that there would be no possibility of impeachment.

    If so, could he still wind up in the Senate?

  220. Sebastian, I do intend a sweeping indictment, covering practical competence (“maybe we should hire qualified people and keep reliable accounting”), tactics (“wedge tactics can swing against us as easily as for us”, “no matter how much we lie to the American public, the locals will know about us funding death squads and resent us”), and overall vision (“is the problem really that Americans have too much health care?”, “sure, violence is fun, but it’s costly and ends up creating more problems down the road”). Goldwater conservatism can win some elections. But nobody who adheres to it seems able to produce fiscal sanity, or promote the general welfare, or indeed avoid governing like addled ninnies.
    As a governing philosophy, it’s failed far more disastrously than (say) Great Society liberalism – it’s had more tries, and produced more harm and less benefit. Conservatism now needs the kind of reinvention that’s come from (on one wing) the DLC and (on the other) the netroots movement, something to strip away a whole rotten edifice of practice and reexamine both means and ends. Simply saying “but next time we won’t elect bunglers and crooks” shouldn’t be given respect as a credible response anymore.

  221. Bob: If Bush is found with a naked dead woman in the Oval Office, it is very wrong to have given your word that there would be no possibility of impeachment.
    What if Bush is found with naked Jeff Gannon in the Oval Office? 😉 Would it be better, or worse, if Bush claimed Gannon was just there to sell him crystal meth?

  223. Slarti: Thanks for the polling links, which weren’t available during the ~15 minutes of uninterrupted net access I’ve had in the past week. The most significant correlations there, I think, are the Age and (to a lesser extent) Education ones. The Amendment had overwhelming (40-60) opposition from people under 30, and overwhelming (~60-40) support from people over 30; likewise, support of the Amendment was overwhelming in people with just a high school education (68-32) but began to drop off considerably with increasing education. Most interesting.

  224. Voters are Not Fiscal Conservatives
    Tyler Cowen of Marginal Revolution on TABOR Initiatives.
    Postmortems …Kevin Drum
    “Elsewhere, Christina Larson documents the pain of the Club for Growth’s Pat Toomey. It seems the Club took a poll before the election and they didn’t like the results:
    ‘Two-thirds agreed with the notion that the GOP used to be the party of fiscal responsibility and limited government but was not today. By an 11-point margin, likely voters expressed greater confidence in Democrats to handle select fiscal matters responsibly. “We have lost our brand,” Toomey bemoaned.’
    Get real, guys. The Club for Growth and its ilk have never cared a tenth as much about lower spending as they have about lower taxes. They know perfectly well that if a Republican administration actually cut spending to match its tax cuts it would get voted out of office for the next century.
    And they’ve never cared. They just want low taxes (the easy part of fiscal responsibility) without the spending cuts (the part that gets you voted out of office). It’s similar to the GOP’s Iraq strategy: they want the glory of winning a war, but without the pain of making the hard choices it would take to actually do so.
    At the moment, the Republican Party is the Party of Magic. That’s the brand they need to fix.” …KD
    Sorry, Sebastian. I happen to believe real conservatism, as I define it, is a plausible governing philosophy. I agree with Bruce Baugh, it hasn’t worked well as actually practiced by people who call themselves conservatives.
    Maybe SCOTUS will help y’all out.

  225. Oh! I should remember to say! Slarti, thank you very much for the polling stuff about the anti-gay amendments. I like having data, and What Anarch Said for me too. Thank you!
    One way of looking at the fate of Goldwater conservatism is this: it’s been part of more campaigns than anything this century except New Deal liberalism, as a matter of party platforms and campaign promises. Nixon of course had a lot else in his mix, but Reagan and Bush Jr. put various threads of conservatism, including the principled restriction of government size and scope of influence, out there front and center. (Front and right? 🙂 ) The American people have collectively rejected the various other ideologies of governance offered up, as each has proven incapable of dealing with the challenges that actually come up. To say that this one has also failed is only to hold it to the same standard suitable for all the rest.

  226. “And they’ve never cared. They just want low taxes (the easy part of fiscal responsibility) without the spending cuts (the part that gets you voted out of office).”
    Perhaps you’ve missed my previous criticisms of the political process regarding that topic. I fully understand that lots of people want more benefits without paying for them and lots of people want lower taxes without cutting benefits. The people you allude to are mirror images of the idiots who decry Bush’s tax cuts and then suggest that if we didn’t have those tax cuts we could have had a much larger Medicare Drug Benefit. (To be clear, reversing the Bush tax cuts doesn’t even get us to even with the Clinton-level of spending, so reversing it wouldn’t free up money for huge new spending).

  227. Bob, thanks for reminding us of the TABOR amendments.
    I don’t know what the small print was in the Tabor spawn, but Douglas Bruce, the sole author of the original Tabor Amendment in Colorado, included in his amendment language to the effect that during recession years, when government revenue falls, state spending must be “ratcheted” down to the new lower spending base, which would then become a permanent benchmark for spending.
    Colorado government was so hamstrung by this stipulation after the last recession, that even Governor Bill Owens, at great cost to his bonafides with the hate-the-government crowd, joined with responsible Republicans to favor gutting the Tabor last(?) year.
    Norquist (now there is a guy who requires indictment) caught on to Bruce’s strategy, viewing the Tabor as a natural bookend to the Laffer supply-side curve — government could be permanently, everlastingly, continually slashed regardless of economic
    conditions and reality and even IF Laffer was anywhere close to being right about lower taxes filling government coffers.
    As a side note, Bruce shared the charm of Norquist and Limbaugh and the rest of the Orcs. Even his compatriots don’t turn their back on him, fearing multiple arrows in the back. He’s a hater.

  228. I see bob mcm has beat me to it, but Sebastian I’m pretty sure that Bruce Baugh is talking about Conservatism, while you are talking about conservatism. Conservatism is a bankrupt ideology, just as surely as Communism. That doesn’t mean Marx is useless, and it also doesn’t mean that minimizing the rate of social and political change is necessarily a bad approach to policymaking.
    But the sooner folks like you accept that “Conservatism” — as typified by the GOP confluence of nationalist, theocratic, and cheap-labor factions* — has failed, the sooner small-c conservatism will regain some traction. Mind you, as a conservative I mistrust rapid and sweeping policy changes. But as a pragmatist and sometime student of biology I acknowledge that when your environment is changing rapidly small-c conservatism is a losing proposition.
    * these are of course masquerading as a confluence of nationalist, social-conservative and free-market factions.

  229. “Perhaps you’ve missed my previous criticisms of the political process regarding that topic.”
    Nah, I haven’t missed it. I was at RedState yesterday where they decried NCLB and Medicare Part B but never mentioned military spending. As someone outside of it, it is a little hard for to get a grip on “conservatism”, remembering, say early Everett Dirksen, who opposed both the New Deal and Lend-Lease.
    This from Yglesias may make you feel a little better (from a comment)
    “I’m honestly not sure what Matt is referring to in terms of “big, lasting accomplishments.”
    “Fiscal policy, mostly. Reagan cut taxes massively and produced big deficits. After that, taxes got re-raised substantially, but in a way so that the wealthy were taxed much less heavily than the previously had been. Meanwhile, the revenue thereby raised went primarily to dig us out of Reagan’s fiscal hole rather than to finance new programs. Then Bush comes in and cuts taxes again. Democrats are now in a position of, once again, now pushing to only partially undue Bush’s favors for the richest Americans and, again, the revenue will merely pay off Bush’s debts rather than finance new programs. If this tax cut / deficit / debt payment cycle just keeps iterating, America will be locked into a downward spiral of inequality.” …MY
    According to what I have read, even letting the second Bush tax cuts expire in 2010 is off the table, because of the likelihood of a weak economy in the next two years.
    Does it matter what party is in charge, if the fiscal situation forces Democrats to be Eisenhower Republicans? Well, I suppose for someone pro-life, it does.

  230. Oh, my. Inequality. Next thing you know, they’ll be telling you that people are individuals, or something even more scandalous.

  231. look, the conservatism that has repeatedly shown itself to result in nothing but pork and corruption is the same thing as Reagan conservatism:
    “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.'”
    This is irrational, fundamentalist government-hatred. And the reason that irrational government-hatred results in pocket-lining is because when government-haters are elected, they neither want to nor are able to do the hard work of governing, i.e. crafting and implementing solutions to the problems that our nation faces.
    So they find themselves in positions of immense power where they can channel flows of money from one place to another. Genuine governors, people who care about solving problems, will channel those moneys where they will do the most good, be that into bureaucracy, block-grants, paying down the debt, or even tax-reduction (once the debt is paid off).
    And, having no inclination to put that money to use to serve the people, conservatives have shown, time and again, that they channel it into their own pockets and into the pockets of their friends and cronies.
    The conservative hatred of government isn’t just a problem on the domestic front: it is exactly the root cause of the disaster in Iraq. (I mean: the cause of the failure of reconstruction, after the flawed decision to go to war was made).
    The architects of post-war Germany and Japan were New Dealers: people who believed that building strong civic institutions is at the core of creating peace and prosperity. Of course they believed in the power of markets, too, but markets that flourish because they have the proper framework of regulation.
    New Dealers built strong, effective, problem-solving government at home. And they built it abroad. It was the same ideology, domestic and foreign, that made the post-war miracle possible.
    But people who think that government is always and everywhere the enemy are people who smash and destroy civic institutions, but cannot build any in their place.
    And, worse than that, government-haters who have deceived themselves about their own dependence on government (like all those brave western cowboys grazing on federal subsidies) think that after they have smashed and broken up the government, this magic thing called “free enterprise” will spring up unaided. Freedom is messy.
    The Heritage Foundation viewed Iraq as the perfect laboratory in which to put into practice all of their cherished ideas about conservatism. And they succeeded: the failure of reconstruction in Iraq shows exactly what you get when government-haters are put in charge of government. The collapse of all civic institutions, the destruction of order and trust, the reduction of “free markets” to black markets and protection-rackets: this is all a far better demonstration of the results of true Conservative ideas than Heritage could ever have intendend.
    If Conservatives (or conservatives–I don’t know what magic is intended by typography) were allowed to have a free hand in this country, it would look like Iraq, too, before long. Thank god the American people’s desire for government that works has returned to put some checks on their power.
    Bush is the perfect embodiment of the conservative tendencies from Goldwater through Reagan through Norquist: he’s a smasher who does not know how to build.
    And he’s an asset-stripper who got ahold of the US Treasury checkbook, left us trillions of dollars poorer, and is leaving a smoking wreck where the Federal Government used to be.
    That’s Conservatism, and conservatism.

  232. Or it could be that what leads to pocket-lining is simply avarice. I’d be interested in hearing your theory of how a hypothetical government-loving Democrat might stray into corruption. Not that any of them do, mind you.

  233. Hm. What might be a better line of thought is that “government haters” don’t understand how to use governments to govern. And part of governing is to use the mechanisms of governments to limit the effect of avarice and greed.
    Dismantling the power of government also, to an extent, means dismantling some of the protective mechanisms of government that prevent shady individuals from taking advantage.

  235. So, you’re saying that lack of oversight effectively enabled guys like William Jefferson to put their hands into the till?
    Something to consider, I guess. Certainly more logical than the notion that hating government (or, I suspect more accurately, being inclined to prefer smaller government, but that’s less of an effective brickbat) leads one to the impulse to steal.

  236. Slarti- The problem is that it would have to be hypothetical since in 40 years of Democratic rule the Democrats never became even 1% as corrupt as the Republicans managed from day one of their 12 years of misrule.

  237. “The problem is that it would have to be hypothetical since in 40 years of Democratic rule the Democrats never became even 1% as corrupt as the Republicans managed from day one of their 12 years of misrule.”
    Unfortunately (because it would be nice if there really was a party that didn’t get corrupted by power), that just isn’t true at all. By any measure I can think of, Democrats were clearly more corrupt in power during the late 1980s than the Republicans were in 1995. In fact one of the reasons Gingrich was able to come to power as Speaker was that much of the 1994 election was about Democratic Party corruption.
    Now the speed with which Republicans came corrupt may very well be a matter of legitimate dispute. But the Republican Congress that first came to power was not as corrupt as the one it replaced.

  238. 1994 Democrats: Corrupt, but at least attempting to govern in the way they said they would govern.
    2006 Reputlicans: corrupt, and not governing much at all, and when they do so not in the manner they professed to.
    Anyway, off to the land of Pelosi for the next few days.

  239. Hilzoy:
    dmb: I forget who originally said that the Republicans were eventually going to adopt the old Marxist line that Marxism hasn’t failed; it has never actually been tried, since every single allegedly Marxist state didn’t actually adopt Marxism in its pure form at all! — but whoever it was was right.
    I think I first read it at Digby (no surprise) and it was echoed by Atrios.

  241. Sure it does. Alcee Hastings, though, has a good running head start. As, arguably, does John Murtha.
    We could beat each other over the head with our corrupt, or we could encourage each other to rid ourselves of corruption. I’m leaning in the latter direction.

  242. Sebastian:
    The basic flaw in conservatism as practiced in the US since 1994 is giving in to pork projects to try to maintain Congressional power.
    I suggest you do a little more reading about US history, which will reveal that this has been a fundamental problem with the US conservative movement since the industrial revolution — not a post-1994 phenomena (though specific strategies such as earmarking may be more recent). This is due to the simple fact that big business and conservative principles have been wedded for a century. Conservatives have forever been using government to cut deals for the benefit of business allies. The link was nakedly apparent a century ago — less so now, but still there very plainly.
    There are plenty of Dems willing to be seduced in the same manner, but their liberal ideology is not so accommodating. Conservative ideology has always made room for this corruption.
    After all, ask yourself whether or not any conservatives would now be condemning Bush et al. as not “true conservatives” if he had managed to hold onto the House and Senate? Minor grumbling perhaps, but the current vitriol is more about losing power than concerns about abuses of power. That says it all.
    It seems to me that the flawed premise regarding the alleged conservate ideology is that it allegedly is against government interference period, when in fact its history has been that its all for government power being used to promote the interests of its business constituency.
    Not to be too snarky, but I am reminded of the scene in Godfather 2 when Michael is talking with Roth, who is extolling the pleasure of doing business in Cuba:
    If I could only live to see it, to be there with you. What I wouldn’t give for twenty more years! Here we are, protected, free to make our profits without Kefauver, the goddamn Justice Department and the F.B.I. ninety miles away, in partnership with a friendly government. Ninety miles! It’s nothing! Just one small step, looking for a man who wants to be President of the United States, and having the cash to make it possible. Michael, we’re bigger than U.S. Steel.
    What I am saying is, we have now what we have always needed, real partnership with the government.
    I understand that there is a conservative ideology that preaches something different, but it does not reflect the reality of the conservative movement in this country.

  243. Slarti: We could beat each other over the head with our corrupt, or we could encourage each other to rid ourselves of corruption. I’m leaning in the latter direction.
    I tend to agree, but I also tend to think that the Republican Party as a political organization — by which I don’t (usually) mean rank-and-file registered Republican voters, but in which I do include the sotto voce coalition of conservative/fundamentalist issue groups (e.g. Focus on the Family), boosters (e.g. the energy industry), and outright abettors (e.g. FOX News, Limbaugh, etc.) — has become little more than vehicle for corruption with an excellent PR department. To that end, therefore, it’s not (to me) about “beating each other over the head with our corrupt”, it’s dismantling the largest racketeering operation the United States has seen since the robber barons, all of whom happen to belong to the same political party.
    And I’ll back Sebastian above that the Democratic Congress of the 1980s should not be held up as an exemplar of integrity. I think we likely disagree as to whether the Democrats were more corrupt as a party than the Republicans during that timeframe — in part because I think it’ll depend on what we consider “corrupt” — but statements like:
    The problem is that it would have to be hypothetical since in 40 years of Democratic rule the Democrats never became even 1% as corrupt as the Republicans managed from day one of their 12 years of misrule.
    are simply flat-out wrong.
    That said, if one modifies the statement to:
    “The problem is that it would have to be hypothetical since in 40 years of Democratic rule the Democrats never became even 1% as corrupt as the Republicans managed from halfway through their 12 years of misrule.”
    I think the statement is not only colorable but actually true, and for much the same reasons that Bruce Baugh and kid bitzer eloquently stated above. People who are avowed foes of government, who believe that government is inherently the problem and never the solution — and especially those who do so from either a deluded position of independence (e.g. the western rancher phenomenon mention upthread) or from a deluded position of “non-interventionism” (e.g. the so-called Christians demanding a “Christian nation” while screaming bloody murder over separation of church and state whenever their dogma is contradicted, or big business advocates using government’s “laissez faire” monopoly-on-violence to make their businesses bigger) — make for crappy governors, as the last forty years have shown, and, unfortunately for folks like Sebastian and Slarti (and TGB and OCS, IIRC, and doubtless others reading here), this is what is meant by “conservatism”. You guys will need to mount a very strong campaign if you want to reclaim that term (and its original application) from the sewer where it now resides, and part of that campaign will necessarily be a purge of the party these reactionary grifters have subverted.
    PS: Nancy Pelosi has claimed that this Congress will be the Cleanest Congress Evah. I suggest that, if it starts looking like this was just so much hype, those of us who voted Democratic should call her (and our new Representatives) to remind her to keep her promises. It’s smart politics, it’s good for the country, and it’s the right thing to do.

  244. Conservatism doesn’t reject human wants and needs, it focuses on different ones in different ways. It believes that teaching someone to fish is more important than giving them fish.
    Well, sure, along with making sure there’s no funding available for fishing-teaching programs, or saying that the churches should probably handle that anyway, or only wanting Divine Fishmongering taught. Or making sure that if someone enrolls in a fishing instruction program, their current fish-purchasing assistance gets cut. Or not helping them out with taking care of the kids while mom is at fishing class. Or somesuch. Hell, conversativism generally won’t even help them get a fishing pole, let alone a damned fish, when they’re hungry.
    Please, sell the “teach a man to fish . . . ” line somewhere else. Conservativism is fine with letting people do without any fish at all, and if they didn’t learn to fish in the first place, it’s too bad for them. They should’ve chosen parents who knew how to fish, or had plenty of fish in the bank.
    Or did I wake up on a planet where, say, conservatives suddenly support Head Start, for example? A program that starts teaching fishing as early as possible? Yeah, that’s what I thought.
    It believes that giving people everything they say they want isn’t necessarily the best way to have long term growth in an economy and in their character.
    Since when is it the government’s job to build character in people? Character-building is best left as an individual pursuit, thanks very much.
    Slarti: Oh, my. Inequality.
    You know what would be fun? To pretend that there were no other words surrounding the word “inequality,” and no context to the sentence in which it appeared. Wouldn’t that be fun? Let’s do that.
    Oh, wait. I think you already did. Carry on, then.

  245. So, you’re saying that lack of oversight effectively enabled guys like William Jefferson to put their hands into the till?
    Something to consider, I guess. Certainly more logical than the notion that hating government (or, I suspect more accurately, being inclined to prefer smaller government, but that’s less of an effective brickbat) leads one to the impulse to steal.
    Well, that stands to reason. And it’s an unintended consequence (the law of which applies to both liberals and conservatives). Reduce the power of government, and you also reduce the power to govern itself.
    I also suspect that what’s also fueling that would be the drive toward more “business friendly” government. Much of this would be quite unobjectionable, but the nature of the beast means there are inevitably more and more questionable partnerships which slide more and more easily into corruption.
    Hm. Perhaps the antagonism toward big business that a lot of progressives and liberals have would be a natural antidote to that kind of corruption. (Or perhaps I’m rambling at the end of the day…)

  246. “After all, ask yourself whether or not any conservatives would now be condemning Bush et al. as not “true conservatives” if he had managed to hold onto the House and Senate? Minor grumbling perhaps, but the current vitriol is more about losing power than concerns about abuses of power. That says it all.”
    Gee, that is rather easy to answer isn’t it? Since there were a large number of people saying that BEFORE Bush et al. managed to lose their hold on the House and Senate and since in fact quite a few conservatives voted for Democrats or declined to vote on that basis, it would appear to say it all but not in the way you want.
    “Since when is it the government’s job to build character in people? Character-building is best left as an individual pursuit, thanks very much.”
    Since um, forever–though the idea that it isn’t is a growing and frightening trend in liberal ideology. The whole idea of civic virtue being one of the VERY MOST IMPORTANT parts of being a citizen in a democratic state goes back to Athens. And the idea that the state itself has something to do with that goes back just as far.
    “Or did I wake up on a planet where, say, conservatives suddenly support Head Start, for example? A program that starts teaching fishing as early as possible? Yeah, that’s what I thought.”
    I’m happy you brought Head Start up. You might want to do a little research on its actual effectiveness before you try hitting me over the head with it. Supporting spending on ineffective programs, is that a liberal or conservative trait? (I would tend to suspect ‘both’ but who knows?)

  247. “Hm. Perhaps the antagonism toward big business that a lot of progressives and liberals have would be a natural antidote to that kind of corruption. (Or perhaps I’m rambling at the end of the day.”
    History suggests, not so much, unless you are willing to take a very narrow view of “progressives and liberals” which excludes most of the Democratic Party when in power 1960-1994.

  248. Seb: one can think (as, oh, to pick an example at random, I do) that civic virtue is incredibly important without thinking that the government ought to be involved in promoting it.
    I point this out just because it’s one of those very rare moments when I get to say: look! Sebastian is thinking the way he thinks liberals think! (Meaning, taking the claim that X matters to be equivalent to the claim that the government should provide X.)
    Tee hee. Too good to pass up.

  249. Since um, forever–though the idea that it isn’t is a growing and frightening trend in liberal ideology.
    The idea that individuals and their families should be responsible for the construction of their character is “frightening?” Wow.
    The whole idea of civic virtue being one of the VERY MOST IMPORTANT parts of being a citizen in a democratic state goes back to Athens. And the idea that the state itself has something to do with that goes back just as far.
    Yes, and they all died eventually, so what does that prove? In any case, it’s not like conservatives care so much about this anymore either, aside from making sure kids say the Pledge of Allegiance every day and that it continues to mention Jebus.
    I’m happy you brought Head Start up. You might want to do a little research on its actual effectiveness before you try hitting me over the head with it.
    OK, lets. Or, if you don’t like that one, I’m sure you and your fellow conservatives have in mind a much more effective early-fishing-teaching program that you’re out there plugging for.
    ::::sound of crickets::::
    Yeah, that’s what I thought.

  250. “Seb: one can think (as, oh, to pick an example at random, I do) that civic virtue is incredibly important without thinking that the government ought to be involved in promoting it.”
    Sure you could. And I think many other factors should help create civic virtue along with the state–I would certainly not think something so silly as “only the state can instill civic virtue”.
    But I was responding to: “Since when is it the government’s job to build character in people?” My response was, “since democracy was first utilized in government”. The idea that it is completely shocking and appalling (and only a part of ‘conservative’ political thought) that building character had anything to do with the state and is something which has no history in democracy, suggests a lack of historical perspective.
    The comment would be akin to saying “since when have states used military might to protect their citizens”. For anyone with historical knowledge, the question is somewhat surprising.

  251. “OK, lets. Or, if you don’t like that one…”
    No we can stick with talking about the ineffective Head Start Program.
    Or do you think this form of argument is analytically proper: “The current program in Iraq doesn’t seem to be moving toward effective and stable democracy. Unless you have a more effective program for that aim, we must continue the current progam.”
    You ok with that?
    So, what did you want to say about Head Start? Is spending money on ineffective programs good fiscal responsibility? Is it a liberal value to waste money just because the ‘aim’ is good?

  252. The idea that it is completely shocking and appalling (and only a part of ‘conservative’ political thought) that building character had anything to do with the state and is something which has no history in democracy, suggests a lack of historical perspective.
    I am fairly certain that the only person who has busted out the words “shocking,” “appalling,” or any of their close cousins in Roget’s is, well, you, Sebastian. Maybe you oughta have a nice glass of pinot and relax a little. Oh, and learn to read without putting words in people’s mouths.
    No we can stick with talking about the ineffective Head Start Program.
    Yes, lets.

    The cognitive domain consists of six constructs each comprising one or more measures.
    The key findings in this domain are:
    — There are small to moderate statistically significant positive impacts for both 3- and 4-year-old children on several measures across four of the six cognitive constructs,
    including pre-reading, pre-writing, vocabulary, and parent reports of children’s literacy skills.
    — No significant impacts were found for the constructs oral comprehension and phonological awareness or early mathematics skills for either age group.
    Social-Emotional Domain
    The social-emotional domain consists of three constructs, each comprising one or more parent-reported measures.3 The key findings in this domain are:
    — For children who entered the study as 3-year-olds, there is a small statistically significant impact in one of the three social-emotional constructs, problem behaviors.
    — There were no statistically significant impacts on social skills and approaches to learning or on social competencies for 3-year-olds.
    — No significant impacts were found for children entering the program as 4-year-olds.
    Health Domain
    The key findings in this domain, consisting of two constructs, are:
    — For 3-year-olds, there are small to moderate statistically significant impacts in both constructs, higher parent reports of children’s access to health care and reportedly better health status for children enrolled in Head Start.
    — For children who entered the program as 4-year-olds, there are moderate statistically significant impacts on access to health care, but no significant impacts for health status.
    Parenting Practices Domain
    The key findings in this domain, consisting of three constructs, are:
    — For children who entered the program as 3-year-olds, there are small statistically significant impacts in two of the three parenting constructs, including a higher use of educational activities and a lower use of physical discipline by parents of Head Start children. There were no significant impacts for safety practices.
    — For children who entered the program as 4-year-olds, there are small statistically significant impacts on parents’ use of educational activities. No significant impacts were found for discipline or safety practices.
    . . . Positive impacts were found for a variety of subgroups of
    children with a range of demographic and family characteristics:
    — Child and home language: For children in the 3-year-old group whose primary language was English, positive impacts were found on a variety of cognitive outcomes, as well as on particular measures of social-emotional development, health,
    and parenting practices. Among children in this age group whose primary language was Spanish, impacts were found across several domains but were fewer in number.
    For children in the 4-year-old group whose primary language was English, positive impacts were found in all domains; for children whose primary language was Spanish in this age group, impacts were found only in the area of health.
    — Race and ethnicity: For children in the 3-year-old group, race and ethnicity appear to influence the extent of Head Start’s impact, with particularly positive impacts noted in several domains for African American and Hispanic children. For the 4-
    year-old group, fewer impacts were found for minority children; observable impacts were particularly scarce for Hispanic children, a group found to have just one statistically significant impact (in the area of health).
    — Primary caregiver’s depressive symptoms: For children in the 3-year-old group, cognitive impacts were found to decrease with increasing levels of primary caregiver’s reported baseline depressive symptoms. For children in the 4-year-old
    group, impacts were found to be sensitive to baseline depression for just one outcome, parent-reported child social competencies.
    — Age of mother at first birth: In the 3-year-old sample, Head Start reduced the use of physical discipline when children misbehaved for mothers who had first given birth before the age of 19. In both the 3- and 4-year-old group, Head Start led
    mothers who had first given birth after the age of 19 to spend more time reading to their children, and to take them to a greater variety of cultural enrichment activities.

    I’m not sure by what set of criteria “moderately effective in some areas, more effective in some others, and less or not effective in other” equals “ineffective,” but I do know it’s an easily-dismissable set.
    In any case, you’ve made the positive claim that you and all your conservative buddies are in favor of teaching people to fish, so I’m going to have to assume you have ideas concerning fishing instruction and ask that you share them with us; otherwise I’ll just assume — probably correctly — that it’s a pointless tribal shibboleth reflecting nothing real and leave it at that.

  253. Oh, and the form of argument you mean to propose should actually be — since you switched voices in the middle from the person representing you to the person representing me — something like: “”The current program in Iraq doesn’t seem to be moving toward effective and stable democracy. I do not have an idea of my own for an effective Iraq program, so I will merely call yours ‘ineffective’ and pretend it’s the same thing.”

  254. There is a reason you have to cite the one year outlook studies to get an effect–the effect doesn’t persist over time. At two years the difference is almost imperceptible and after that the difference between the Head Start kids and non-Head Start kids has completely vanished. Not just “not statistically significant”. Totally gone. See Magnuson, Ruhm, and Waldfogel (2004).
    No long term difference isn’t ‘successful’ for a $7 billion program.

  255. Hmm, to be clear, when I say “There is a reason you have to cite the one year outlook studies to get an effect” it isn’t an accusation of dishonesty or something like that. Probably better to have said “the effect vanishes within a year, so citing the one-year effect isn’t dispositive”.

  256. Sebastian:
    “After all, ask yourself whether or not any conservatives would now be condemning Bush et al. as not “true conservatives” if he had managed to hold onto the House and Senate? Minor grumbling perhaps, but the current vitriol is more about losing power than concerns about abuses of power. That says it all.”
    Gee, that is rather easy to answer isn’t it? Since there were a large number of people saying that BEFORE Bush et al. managed to lose their hold on the House and Senate and since in fact quite a few conservatives voted for Democrats or declined to vote on that basis, it would appear to say it all but not in the way you want.
    I bolded two parts of your statement to emphasize how you are playing a false numbers game and thereby not responding to my point. Yes, there were prior voices, but I bet the “large number” of those voices were in the category of willing to hold their noses and still vote for the same crap. And as for the “quite a few” who did vote Dem (or not vote), what percentage of Repubs are we talking about here? It is still a small minority in the Party, and hence my point.
    Most Republicans were happy to go along with the alleged “non-conservatives” so long as they delivered.

  257. It’s not as if the media was interested in the Democratic agenda…
    It’s not as if the Dem leadership emphasized their six points, rilke, or showed that they were terribly interested in it themselves.
    Before indulging the usual tit-for-tat, let me suggest that you write a post about a reaffirmation of conservative values that would set the Republican Party straight — that would provoke some interesting conversation around here.
    Already done that, dm, which is why I reject your attempt at rebranding, i.e., perpetuating the myth that Bush governed as a conservative. If you think Bush governed as a conservative should, then I suggest you’re being bone ignorant about what conservatives stand for, and you’re not going to get a straight version from the likes of John Dean. Hint: three of the main pillars are limited government, individual responsibility and national security. Bush has failed on all three counts, and the Republican congress wasn’t far behind. That’s why the Republicans are where they are, in no small part.
    The failures of Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Jr. are failures of conservativsm implemented.
    Bruce, Nixon was our most liberal Republican president in the modern era. There is no way his administration could have been called conservative. Reagan’s conservatism didn’t fail, and it lived on in the Republican congress during the Gingrich era, then died when Hastert came into the picture. Bush 41 and 43 talked conservative but did not govern so. I would suggest that being a conservative is to behave ethically, but conservatism also takes into account human nature, which can go astray. That’s why we have the checks and balances that we do.

  258. If you think Bush governed as a conservative should, then I suggest you’re being bone ignorant about what conservatives stand for… Hint: three of the main pillars are limited government, individual responsibility and national security.
    And therein lies the crux of the argument: that’s what conservatives claim to stand for. The reality of conservative governance is vastly different. That doesn’t suggest bone ignorance about what they profess; rather, it suggests a level of susceptability (in the best-case scenario) or hypocrisy (in the worst-case scenario)* amongst movement conservatives that needs to be addressed by you and yours, and more seriously than with a simple excommunication.
    * Actually, that’s not the worst-case scenario. The worst-case scenario is that they’re simply liars or, alternatively, that they’re consummate bullshit artists [again, as always, in Frankfurter’s sense of the term]. I strongly suspect that’s the case amongst certain of the more cynical conservatives, e.g. Rove and Cheney, though obviously direct evidence is somewhat lacking.
    That’s why we have the checks and balances that we do.
    Which checks and balances were systematically dismantled by the current GOP with, if memory serves, your support (tacit or otherwise).

  259. The reality of conservative governance is vastly different.
    The reality is that we didn’t have conservative governance for the last six years, Anarch. Reagan conservatism worked quite well. It would’ve been nice had Bush and the 21st century Republican congress tried it.
    Which checks and balances were systematically dismantled by the current GOP with, if memory serves, your support (tacit or otherwise).
    The last election proved that checks and balances are very much in effect, Anarch. Where exactly did our constitution become “systematically dismantled”? Must’ve missed it.

  260. The Republican party set out over twenty years ago to create a one party state. Delay and Norquist have both stated so publically. The goal was to eliminate checks and balances by giving one party control of all of the branches.
    The Reagan years were years of out of control pork barrel spending, budget busting, corruption “the hogs are feeding”, the appointment of profiteers and exploiters to manage the public agencies they were supposed to run in the public interest, Iran/Contra, and the beginnings of the politics of demonization and extreme partisanship.
    If that’s your idea of good government and true conservatism then…how’s that different than the current administration?. It’s a difference of degree, not kind.

  261. Reagan left us with monstrous and growing deficits, massive corruption, unnecessarily alienated world opinion because of ill-considered and stupidly executed interventions in both hemispheres, and the groundwork laid for our current mess in Iraq. His administration also deepened the then-still-new problem of declining real wages for the lower and middle classes. (Might as well throw the Veterans Administration in here too; it took some effort under Bush Sr. and a lot under Clinton to clean up that one.) And he did all of it with greatly bloated spending.
    This is what people like Anarch and me mean when we say that movement conservatism is a demonstrably bad foundation for government. The only sense in which it restrains the government is when it comes to providing for those in need thanks to poverty, disability, and the like. Otherwise it’s full bore ahead for managerial creed, preferential treatment of specific religious denominations, calculated neglect of the law with regard to oversight and uniform practice, and a lot more – by the admission of those who set and carry out policy, once they’re freed of the burden of present-moment PR. Serious effort at curtailing the size and power of the state that might inconvenient the rentier classes, that always goes by the wayside.
    If three different administrations had all tried the Great Society approach and all met the same fate, we’d all agree that it had proven itself a bad foundation. But for some reason movement conservatism never has to submit to the same judgment; there’s always an excuse. But I say the problem is simple – it has a bad vision of human nature, and is doomed because of it.

  262. “True” conservatism can’t exist in the real world. It is a phenomenon of late night undergraduate conversation and thinktank ivory towers. In order to get elected true conservatives have to get votes. Since almost nobody actually supports true coservative principles the true conservative eithher has to compromise or lie to get elected. Once elected they have to give the voters what thhe voters want or baffle them with bullshit in order to sty elelcted. So youu get the recurrent patternn: use some kinnd of appeal to the baserr instincts to get elected, serve the local special interests once elected, be a true conservative when it is convenient for the special interests and be a hack most of the time.

  263. Ditto lily’s comment. Bush represents Reagan ideology without a pesky Democratic Congress getting in the way.
    Reagan innaugurated massive deficit spending as a conservative trademark. In 2001, Cheney cited Reagan’s example as proof that deficits allegedly don’t matter.
    Just another example of conservatives rewriting history rather than deal with the actual legacy. Failure to correct error is a feature of a failed ideology. And my favorite phony corrolary to this piece of historical rewrite is giving primary credit to Repubs for the 90s balanced budgets.
    Conservative ideology — wrongly denying responsiblity and falsely claiming credit.

  264. There is a reason you have to cite the one year outlook studies to get an effect–the effect doesn’t persist over time. At two years the difference is almost imperceptible and after that the difference between the Head Start kids and non-Head Start kids has completely vanished. Not just “not statistically significant”.
    I suspect there are reasons for that which are strongly correlated to how public school funding is handled and how curricula are developed. which are failures of everyone. The answer to that is not to cancel Head Start; it’s to make primary school education better.
    Nonetheless, are you going to share your — and your conservative buddies’ — fishing education programs with us, or not?

  265. The reality is that we didn’t have conservative governance for the last six years, Anarch.
    Insofar as the governance didn’t adhere to the principles that you laid out, sure. Insofar as Bush was the apotheosis of the conservative movement — and was regarded as same by conservatives until he started failing — the reality is that yes, we’ve had six years of conservative governance. They’ve been utterly disastrous, of course, and I don’t particularly blame you for trying to slough it off on someone else — god knows I’d be trying to distance myself from the trainwreck as fast as possible — but Bush was your boy, his presidency your (failed) presidency, and until you face up to those facts and confront the failures of conservatism as an applied ideology, we’re going to suffer through myriad more like him.
    The last election proved that checks and balances are very much in effect, Anarch.
    Not in the slightest. The result of the elections may be the reintroduction of the requisite checks and balances but we won’t know that until the new Congress sits and, hopefully, acts. Even then, there’s the question of whether Bush et al. will respect the actions of the Congress, which is a whole new ball of wax and one that’s had me on edge for several years now.
    In fact, the more I think about it: you’re aware that “checks and balances” refers specifically to separation of powers within the government, right? It’s almost impossible (pace 2000) for an election to witness, let alone prove, the existence of checks and balances. The election proved a number of things — that people are disgusted with the GOP, that people support the Democrats, that the war is considered a failure, etc. — but nothing about “checks and balances” will be proven until the various branches of government interact in the next Congress.
    Where exactly did our constitution become “systematically dismantled”? Must’ve missed it.
    Wow. You really don’t read the threads around here, do you? Habeas corpus mean anything? Oversight? Politicization/stovepiping of intelligence? Unitary executive? Signing statements? Y’know, the things people like Katherine and hilzoy and, well, pretty much damn near everyone on the left has been fighting for the past few years?
    [And that’s not even including Free Speech Zones, the various Congressional dirty tricks the GOP employed against the Democrats, the NRCC’s systematic campaign of election tampering, and so forth, since it’s debatable whether they constitute a dismantling of checks and balances or are simply corrupt expressions of a lust for power.]

  266. Insofar as Bush was the apotheosis of the conservative movement — and was regarded as same by conservatives until he started failing — the reality is that yes, we’ve had six years of conservative governance.
    This is crucial. All the talk from conservatives about how Bush wasn’t really a conservative is nonsense, especially since much of it started, if not post-election, then at the time that the polls started predicting the actual election outcome.
    Bush was supported personally by conservatives, his programs and agendas were heartily endorsed by conservatives, his critics attacked by conservatives.
    Sure, you can find exceptions, but by and large the conservative establishment was behind Bush all the way.

  267. Just to refresh my own memory, I spent some time with Google looking for Bush endorsements from 2000. In no particular order:

    In short, I find little to no foundation for the claim that Bush is anything but a solid movement conservative, with problems stemming from movement conservatism itself. The alternative is to believe that the entire conservative movement was and is too stupid to distinguish candidates who are of them from candidates who aren’t. I’m willing to entertain a plea of incompetence, but it doesn’t seem like it would help reestablish the viability of the moment.

  269. Hmm, I’m not big on trying to figure out what or who George W. Bush is. In the end, I think our leaders are ciphers ….. illusions we cough up who we think look like us (us being whomever votes for a particular person.)
    Then, we puzzle, years later, “what just happened?”
    Here’s what I think happened. Republicans, let’s face it, were stuck with ugly candidates like Phil Gramm, Bob Dole (nice guy, lousy presentation), Pat Buchanen, and assorted thug types with the facial features of Dick Tracy villians and the rhetorical style and twang of a guy whom you try to make small-talk with at a party but who wants to show you his cool gun outside in a totally heterosexual way.
    Along comes George W. Bush, arms akimbo and ready to draw six guns in some sort of swaggering hybrid male-cheerleader-from-Andover/Yale — goodnatured-cowpoke-whom-had-overheard-some booklearnin-bout-privatizing-everything-and-thou-shalt-not-everything-else-combined-with-Daddy’s-connections-and-the-absolute-certainty-of-the-reformed-sinner …. and two meetings took place:
    One with Texas evangelicals and snake-charmers where he waxed righteous and implored them to “trust me” and another with Enron rapacious reptiles to whom he uttered magic words about “cutting taxes” and off we go to …..
    ..wait… there was a memo to the earnest Republicans who meant well and figured Ronald Reagan had risen again …….
    …..now.
    Conservatives found a face…. a mask. One that could seem genuine to the American people and then turn with a macho smirk and give the operators the high sign.
    Now, like Jim Carrey in “The Mask”, they are trying to remove the mask, because what a wacky mask with mysterious powers it turned out to be.
    It was so much fun and so much what we thought we wanted, but that’s not us ..
    ….we’re Phil Gramm, and Pat Buchanan, and Ayn Rand, and James Dobson, and the gruesome twosome, Dick Armey and Tom Delay, and Rush Limbaugh, and Michael Reagan, and Jonah Goldberg, and Ann What’s-Her-Insult.
    Now the Orcs dig for and find Mike Pence like the Beast hoping yet another Beauty will kiss them.
    He’s formidable. He hates government in his own country but loves it when it unnecessarily blows up Iraq.
    He’s very clean. He’s charming.
    He’s Mother Theresa. He’s Cary Grant.
    He’s an Orc with a makeover.

  270. The DoJ says it won’t investigate misleading fliers for Steele and Ehrlich authorized by their campaigns, that homeless workers from Philadelphia were given to distribute to likely Democratic voters in Maryland on Election Day. Apparently there is “insufficient legal basis“. What exactly does that mean? The fliers were intended to untruthfully claim to voters that the Republican candidates had the backing of prominennt black Democratic politicians: the fliers were authorized by the campaigns (not a question of a couple of lone workers thinking “What a cool idea!”): and the fliers were distributed in strongly Democratic districts. So is the Attorney General saying that deliberately setting out to mislead voters in your campaign material is not a crime? (I can see why a Republican would not want to go there.) Or what?

Comments are closed.