by hilzoy
And that means that Democrats control the Senate. And that, in turn, makes me a very happy camper.
Last night I said to myself: whatever else happens, Santorum will lose, and that’s a wonderful thing all by itself. If Weldon loses too, I will be very, very happy. If Allen loses — well, then I’ll be euphoric. I got all three, with Richard Pombo’s loss thrown in for good measure, and control of both houses. So I am floating about on a cloud of bliss.
I’ll try to write something more coherent about what I think this means at some point, but for now, all I can do is think of little phrases like “Chairman Leahy”, and grin.
Umm, I was just discussing this. Isn’t the actual breakdown 49-49-2? If Joe Lieberman or anyone else switches parties what happens with committee chairs?
This is ugly close, as I understand the Senate.
Sanders has already said he’ll caucus with the Dems, as has Lieberman.
Guess which one I trust to keep actually his pledge?
I am moving from the state that just reelected to the Governator to the state that just threw out Santorum. Into John “‘Cut-N-Run'” Murtha’s district no less. Apparently I made a good choice.
*actually keep*
With that, I concede defeat to the English language.
Adieu.
All the talk today has been that unless the canvassing process shows big changes, Allen will concede, perhaps as early as tomorrow.
And so I find myself in the same position I was in 1994, euphoric at the results of the mid-term congressional elections.
*actually keep*
or: “keep, actually,” would’ve worked, though very awkwardly. maybe if you threw in some line breaks here and there, you could’ve disguised it as a poem:
Sanders has already said
he’ll caucus with the Dems
as has Lieberman
Guess!
which one I trust
to keep actually
his pledge?
crappy crap crap crap. the comment system messed up my line breaks and ruined my perfect little poem. one more try (because a lame joke deserves repeating):
Sanders has already said
he’ll caucus with the Dems
as has Lieberman
Guess!
which one I trust
to keep actually
his pledge?
Amanda,
Welcome aboard to the Keystone State.
I’m going to go out on a limb and trust both Sanders and Lieberman.
Lieberman’s not going anywhere — if he switches, he loses his Dem support in CT, and without that, he doesn’t go back to Washington in 2012. And obviously he’d be throwing away any role in a future Dem administration.
oh, by the way, The Right was Right
I, too, think Lieberman will stick with the Democratic party. Rats don’t jump on to sinking ships, as a rule.
Lieberman is not really a Democrat, and will continue to piss on the Party from a great height as has been his behavior for years now.
He will live for the moment and use his position to bargain for whatever he thinks will promote him further. And all the while, pretending that his posture is simply bipartisan centrism.
If he were to openly switch to the Republicans, he will get a temporary buzz and then forever be adrift. He will be a pariah to everyone — the fate of all turncoats.
If he was not such an egomoaniac, he could use this moment to admit he had strayed and affirm his desire to work with the Party again. Heck, he could have done that and insured victory in the primary, but he would not do it. Instead, he acts out his sense that he was treated badly.
I expect Lieberman to be a genuine ass, but I’m not sure it matters. If he were to actually adopt an (R) after his name, he’d anger too many people. If he doesn’t, and he caucuses with the Democrats, they run the show and there’s no role for Darth Cheney.
But if I were Pat Leahy, I’d make sure to never, ever, turn my back on Mr. Lieberman.
Heh, all day I keep hearing Minnie Riperton’s Les Fleur in my head:
Ring all the bells sing and tell the people everywhere that the flower has come
Light up the sky with your prayers of gladness and rejoice for the darkness is gone
Throw off your fears let your heart beat freely at the sign that a new time is born
Lieberman, on a great many of the issues, tends to vote liberal and with the Dems; it is just on a couple of key items that he provides cover and votes in a manner in which the apparently vocal majority on this page would disagree with.
DecidedFenceSitter: and votes in a manner in which the apparently vocal majority on this page would disagree with.
…and, as I understand it, a manner in which the Democratic primary voters in Lieberman’s own state disagreed with: and given the election results from Connecticut, it appears fairly likely that a large number of Democratic voters in Connecticut disagreed with Lieberman… and a large number of Republican voters agreed with him.
It’ll be interesting to see how this comes out:
I made this comment over on the carpetbagger as well, re: Leiberman switching to Republican. There might have been a temptation if the Senate were tied, or if the Republicans still controlled 51-49, but the zeitgeist is clearly with the Democrats right now.
The Iraq issue is trending Democratic as well. As Leiberman learned after the primary, he had to make it sound like he was not quite so positive for the war effort as he had been. He’s been backpedaling for a while.
Sean Hannity tried to corner him about switching, but Joe said he promised to caucus with the Dems (but would act independently).
Here’s my thinking. The 2008 Senate map will look *very* different. We were on the defensive this time, and had to attack “unwinnable” seats. In 2008, (and I’m sorry I don’t know which seats, I read it on another blog), there will be 9 vulnerable R seats and only 2 vulnerable D seats. In other words, the burden is on the Republicans next time, and the likelihood is that the Democrats will pick up another one or two.
If you were Joe Leiberman, looking at that map, and thinking the chances of the Republicans taking it back in two years were very slim, who would you “bet” on……..? (Everyone in the Senate should start whispering that in Joe’s ear…….every day…..)
Leiberman stays with the Democrats because he could lose it all in two years by switching, if the Democrats pick up even one more seat. And nobody would forgive him. He’ll do something or other petty to vent his frustration, but overall I think he’ll be welcomed back, cause that’s just politics.
A personal aside: Hilzoy, you mentioned how happy you were about Weldon……are you in his district as well? (I am….and was darn happy to cast my vote for Sestak this time….)
It’s possible Lieberman’s thinking something like that, and it’s also possible Lieberman’s thinking of how much hay he can make as the swing vote, with Cheney as the tiebreaker.
Unless I’ve screwed up the math somewhere, in which case disregard that last. Lieberman’s not really all that old, so I’m guessing he’s probably looking past the next couple of years. I really doubt he’d switch to Republican, especially considering how easily he won as an Independent.
Anyone got a link to what the latest tally in the House is?
Lieberman promised to caucus with the Democrats, and I believe him to be an honest man.
While not recanting his war vote, he has never been that far apart from other Democrats on what to do now.
He has a lifetime ADA rating of 76 – I don’t think you have too much to worry about.
After what was done to him, he should make the new Senate leader get down on his knees, but I doubt he will.
TPM has a tally:
Senate 51D 49R 0 In Play
House 230D 195R 10 In Play
OCSteve: After what was done to him, he should make the new Senate leader get down on his knees, but I doubt he will.
*nods* Everyone now knows blow-jobs are really, really bad…
i’m pretty happy that Vernon Robinson didn’t make it in NC-13 (not that he had a chance).
thanks cleek
After what was done to him
I just registered this. OCSteve, you are aware that “what was done to him” is that the Democratic voters of Connecticut decided that they’d prefer someone else in the primary elections? Lieberman seemed to think this was terribly unjust, but in a democracy, politicians have to accept that their actions may lead to voters deciding they’d prefer someone else. You don’t agree? (Lieberman got back in, pretty definitely because a lot of usually-vote-Republican voters decided they wanted him, and that was their right, too. But Lieberman has no call and no cause for complaint about “what was done to him”: he lost a vote, that’s all.)
*nods* Everyone now knows blow-jobs are really, really bad…
I had begging in mind – but I do like how your mind works 😉
I had begging in mind
that comes first
Jes:
Of course the Democratic voters of CT have the right to choose who they want as a candidate (although I didn’t care for all the out of state activism I saw going on).
What I had in mind was more the sheer vileness of the campaign, the blackface and the crude remarks – the FDL crowd and their like. I have always felt that Lieberman was a very honorable man, especially for a long term politician. I thought he should have been at the top of the ticket in 2000. The vileness of that primary fight disgusted me, and I didn’t even have a dog in the fight.
The DNC did not support him as they should have, bending to the will of the far left.
I have to say it actually feels a bit like morning in America to me the last couple of days. Rather late morning, of course. Still . . . I look forward to seeing John Conyers’s actions over the next few months. “Cry havoc and let slip the investigative powers of Congress!”
What I had in mind was more the sheer vileness of the campaign
You mean, the campaign was viler by far than the one Bush/Cheney ran against Kerry, which you approved of? You’re on surer ground than me here: I wasn’t in Connecticut during the campaign, and direct news about electoral campaigns in the US tends to filter to the UK only when it’s a Presidential election. And obviously, blog reports about campaigns tend to be skewed. In general, reliable reports say Republicans ran a far dirtier campaign than Democrats, but that says nothing about specific case. So, if you were in Connecticut during the primaries, and are testifying from your personal knowledge that the pro-Lamont Democrats were running a viler campaign than any other in your personal experience, well, what can I say? You would be speaking from your persona; experience, which I don’t have.
If, of course, you’re speaking from your experience of how the Lamont campaign was reported in the rest of the US, then somehow I doubt that it was viler than most American campaigns, because (a) you’re biased and (b) you would be reading biased sources.
The DNC did not support him as they should have, bending to the will of the far left.
Why should the DNC have supported Lieberman against the will of the Connecticut Democratic voters? If the Connecticut Democratic voters had turned to the “far left” (though I’d hardly describe Lamont as “far left”) that’s their democratic right, isn’t it? It would actually have been wrong for the DNC to override their preference… in a democracy.
“far left”
Hadn’t realized Lamont captured the 4th International vote.
(The Socialist Equality Party must be weeping.)
What I had in mind was more the sheer vileness of the campaign, the blackface and the crude remarks – the FDL crowd and their like.
I’m not sure any candidate is responsible for things written on third-party blogs.
Ugh:
“And so I find myself in the same position I was in 1994, euphoric at the results of the mid-term congressional elections.”
THAT is some kind of bipolar disorder, with euphoria at BOTH ends. I think it is referred to as the More-Than-Happy Syndrome.
When you argue with yourself, which side do you take?
On the other hand, Meet The Press could have you on as a guest and the nation could watch you go at it with yourself. Talk about gridlock!
😉
More seriously, but not much more, I saw a few minutes of Chuck Schumer on the O’Reilly show last night being alternately interrupted, bullied, patronized and condescended to, and then caught Tom Delay on CNN being treated rather benignly, for a criminal thug, by Lou Dobbs and a panel of questioners.
It occurs to me that the Democratic Party needs a brand new media strategy. I see no need for “interviews” with the likes of O’Reilly and the much of the other FOX crew, and I’m not interested in hearing Democrats, outside of Lieberman, being interviewed on the radio by the Hewitt/Limbaugh Axis.
Certain media careers must end, like Rather’s did.
The Republican Party had a unified media and political strategy. What not the Democrats?
And I’m preparing to vomit as Hillary Clinton sidles up to Rupert Murdoch.
I don’t recall Gimle going drinking with the Orcs at the end of Part III of Lord Of The Rings. Maybe they cut that scene.
When you argue with yourself, which side do you take?
Sometimes both, sometimes neither, never one or the other.
you’re biased
Well – yeah. I said I like the man and I think he is an honorable politician, a somewhat rare breed.
What am I doing in here arguing in support of a Democratic Senator in any case? I think you folks have finally warped my brain 😉
(proceed with the obvious jokes)
The DNC did not support him as they should have, bending to the will of the far left.
Why should the DNC have supported Lieberman against the will of the Connecticut Democratic voters?
Presumably OCSteve is talking about before the primary vote?
I said I like the man and I think he is an honorable politician, a somewhat rare breed.
To be honest, OCSteve, what’s coming to mind is that set-to we had recently where you condemned in the strongest terms Kerry’s honorable behavior in speaking out publicly against US atrocities in Vietnam. I suspect, therefore, that your admiration for Lieberman’s honor doesn’t have much to do with my definition of honorable behavior.
I’m also reminded of the half-joke/half-definition of an honorable politician – one who stays bought.
I actually have no idea what honorable behavior Lieberman has exhibited in in his political career that makes you admire him (and I note you didn’t say whether you were in CT during the primaries campaign…. were you?) but given that Kerry evidently didn’t appear to be an honorable politician to you, I can guess you are not inspired to admiration/liking by (for example) resistence to corruption, speaking truth to power, courage in physical danger, and solid hard work. All of which would apply to Kerry, and none of which apparently made you like/admire him. (Liking is tougher, I admit: I like some politicians whom I’d never vote for, and I dislike some politicians whom I’d probably vote for. So…)
What am I doing in here arguing in support of a Democratic Senator in any case?
Tell yourself he’s not a Democratic Senator after January… 😉
[insert obvious joke about OCSteve’s brain HERE]
But, Steve, to respectfully argue your point about Joe Lieberman: it seems pretty obvious (to me, anyway) that he really did win re-election by becoming – whether by his own design or nor – the de facto Republican candidate in the race. I am convinced that if the Connecticut GOP had had its act together and put up a more vigorous/respectable candidate than “Gamblin’ Al” Schlesinger, said candidate would have bled off a significant percentage of the mainline Republican vote; and, given the less-than-overwhelming percentages Lieberman garnered in any case, it probably would have been enough to send Sen. Ned Lamont to the 110th Congress.
As it was, the national GOP decided to go with Joe – much good as it will do them – and so here we are.
the national GOP decided to go with Joe
and vice versa, to a degree.
the de facto Republican candidate in the race
I can agree with that. I think enough Republicans realized their guy had no shot, so they voted for Lieberman over taking a chance that Lemont would win. I don’t expect Lieberman to change his views based on that.
Jes: No I was not in CT, my perceptions were formed by the media – new and old.
All of which would apply to Kerry
We’re not going to find any common ground here. I don’t want to rehash 04. I give. Uncle.
Looooooost! The Precious is loooooooost!
(note: same link I posted in the Donald thread)
Jes: *nods* Everyone now knows blow-jobs are really, really bad…
God, you’re such a lesbian…
From the Bizarro World post Ugh linked to:
He seems to have glossed over the fact that those postmortems will be written in Arabic by the subjugated people of the Islamic Republic of North America.
I’m seeing reports that Allen will concede at 3pm today.
OCSteve: We’re not going to find any common ground here. I don’t want to rehash 04. I give. Uncle.
Uncle right back atcha. 😉
God, you’re such a lesbian…
Actually, I’m such a slash fan. The first thing I think of when someone mentions a man on his knees before another man… 😉
Msnbc, for example.
Jes: “Actually, I’m such a slash fan. The first thing I think of when someone mentions a man on his knees before another man… ;-)”
Curious — which fandoms?
You can put me in the camp that thinks Lieberman will caucus happily with the Dems. As a Dem, he is perhaps the most powerful man in the Senate. As a Republican, he is just one of 50 votes to be swayed.
Besides, looking past the war and his general blindness to how badly he was being used by the GOP in his quest for “bipartisanship,” his voting record reveals him to be a dependable guy on most issues I care about. I thought his actions in the last few years (particularly the cloture vote) justified the primary challenge, but now that the question is settled, I think Joe will be perfectly happy to settle into a nice big office and solidify his leadership position. Oh, and I’ll also bet $50 that he runs, and wins, as a democrat in 2012.
I hereby award 10 bonus points to Mithimithi for mentioning Minnie Ripperton! And second the sentiment. For some reason I’ve got a tune from her days with Rotary Connection stuck in my head today… “Want you to know”
Want you to know you made me happy.
Want you to know you made me sad.
Want you to konw you made me happy.
You are the best thing
that I ever had.
M.U.N.C.L.E., M*A*S*H, MacGyver. I only like to slash men from TV series beginning with M. 😉
Blurb on the news, Allen to concede this afternoon. (I think, I just caught part of it walking by the TV.)
And this is quite interesting:
Michael Steele for Republican National Chairman?
Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (R), who came up just short yesterday in his Senate race against Rep. Ben Cardin (D), is mulling a bid for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee, according to an informed GOP source.
I do believe I like that. I don’t know if he has the fund raising chops, but I quite like the idea of it.
OCSteve – he lost by 10 points. I’m not saying he shouldn’t be the RNC chair, I’m just saying your definition of “just short” is a bit different than mine.
Steele himself is a personable guy, and he made a smart TV move and use of his funding edge by putting out a very early series of jokey, avuncular ads intended to defuse negative ads from Cardin; “You are going to see ’em, ads using grainy black and white shots of me, and saying ‘Steele hates puppies.’ Well, for the record, I love puppies.” The strategy worked, insofar as Cardin’s first two weeks of ads were forced to adopt that jokey tone, and the gloves didn’t really come off until the end of the cycle.
But, of course, this year, savvy media strategy was not nearly enough, and Steele got trounced. Just not a good year to be a Republican, especially against a Dem incumbent. I have no doubt Steele will appear again.
I’m just saying your definition of “just short” is a bit different than mine.
That was the original article, I fogot to set it off.
OCS – fair enough. It’s an interesting idea, to be sure, and would show the GOP reaching deeper in its ranks and moving outside the current team (and to my mind anybody would be better than that twerp Mehlman). Do you have a link to the original article?
Re Lieberman vs. Lamont – I was for Lamont. Lieberman lost me with his interference in the Terry Schiavo mess and his support for the war in Iraq. But I’m not a Connecticut voter, so like OCSteve, I had no horse in this race.
That being said, to call Lamont far left is … well, it brings to mind Dave Barry’s description of the Senate: “White Male Millionaires Working for You!” Written many years ago and still apt. Lamont would’ve been a pretty typical senator, I suspect. But perhaps the reference was to Lamont’s supporters.
The “far left” label seems to come from a widespread confusion between two things that aren’t that well correlated: (1) degree of opposition to Bush (or the war) and (2) position on a simplistic left-right political spectrum. Howard Dean and Ned Lamont are thought of as far left, despite their political beliefs. Lieberman is thought of as a conservative Democrat because he’s been a Bush enabler. The conservative McCain is somehow “moderate” because he occasionally makes noises in opposition to the administration. Maybe, just maybe, this election will help the media and others get over that confusion.
These labels kind of drive me nuts as I am in agreement with KC. What exactly do Howard Dean or Ned Lamont believe or espouse that earn them the “far left” label? What does “liberal” mean? Why is it so bad? How is John McCain “moderate”? I fear these labels are amorphous meaning different things to different people thus becoming a hindrance to communication.
But perhaps that is too obvious of a point to make
Actually, I think the “far left” label springs from netroots support for Lamont, not as an accurate descriptor of Lamont’s politics. Or it could be those wacky Mentos-esque commercials featuring Markos.
He does bear a suspicious resemblance to Michael Emerson from Lost, but I’m not sure what that says about him politically.
It means he has one hour to live unless you let those people go.
I don’t think Kos is any more “far left” than Howard Dean, but he did make a mistake in naming the Daily Kos site after himself.
So…what’s your point?
;p
Allen is in the middle of his concession speech right now.
Somehow I hadn’t noticed the phrase “Burns and Allen” until I saw it just now in a MyDD headline. Say goodnight, Gracie!
Ok, I understand that throwing around that football is his schtick, but c’mon.
What was done to him? He had the big dog himself Bill Clinton campaigning for him in the primaries. Along with Boxer and Hillary.
Is it the Dem party’s fault that Joe lost his primary battle? The facts say no. But hey, we all know facts have a liberal bias.
Or are you suggesting that the Democratic Party should have ruled the primary invalid and allowed Joe to run on the Dem ticket despite losing?
What thought process or lack thereof led you to this silly conclusion?
If anything, Lieberman should be thanking the national Democrats for their lack of support for Lamont in the general.
This election had an amazing feel to it. Am I the only one who feels like I’m living in a whole different country than I was last week?
No, it’s not just you, Steve. Such huge problems still…but i feel like it’s not all just downhill some more.
Incidentally:
OCSteve: Lieberman promised to caucus with the Democrats, and I believe him to be an honest man.
Assuming facts not in evidence. In fact, outright ignoring facts in evidence. I suspect that Lieberman will caucus with the Democrats because the Republicans can’t make him as good an offer as they, but make no mistake: he’s a dishonest, egotistical ratf*** who’s only in it for himself. And I say this as someone who thought he’d make a good VP candidate in 2000; I don’t know if I simply misjudged him then or if he really changed as dramatically as all that, but I’m astonishingly grateful that he never attained that office.
“This election had an amazing feel to it. Am I the only one who feels like I’m living in a whole different country than I was last week?”
Agree totally.
After 2004, I felt as though the Twin Towers had just been knocked down a second time–and by domestic terrorists. Mourning in America.
Now I feel as though we might be able to put those Towers back up again. I went to the hardware store yesterday, bought a new flag to replace the old one, and flew it on the front porch all day, just to celebrate the small, incremental recovery of my country.
There are some things I need to stay away from in here. I’ll add Lieberman to the list. It was always like wearing a raw steak around your neck and walking into the lion’s den over at BJ too.
“will caucus with the Democrats because the Republicans can’t make him as good an offer as they”
Read on a Republican blog that Repubs will offer Lieberman Majority Leader, with the complete agenda control that entails. Grain of salt, of course.
“After 2004, I felt as though the Twin Towers had just been knocked down a second time.”
Yes! My god, I remember that; I remember walking into work the next day and feeling a deep, deep funereal hush – and wondering if it was just me or if the whole department was in shock. (Turned out to be the latter.)
And you’re right about the sea change in the way things feel now. Reminds me of a line from “The Wanting of Levine,” in which a character say, on the night FDR is first elected to the WH, “At last: a mensch. Things might not get much better, but at least now I know they won’t get any worse.”
I do believe things will get better, mind you. I’m just so battered by the last 4 years, my main emotion right now is like we’ve escaped a train wreck.
CaseyL: Me too. That’s why I haven’t been able to write anything since: I feel sort of flattened, though in a better way than after previous elections.
“will caucus with the Democrats because the Republicans can’t make him as good an offer as they”
Any chance in that scenario that one of the remaining moderate Republican Senators (Snowe?) might switch to the other side? Of course I would imagine a Lieberman switch and a redistribution of leadership based on Cheney’s tiebreak would lead to a complete loss of function of the body.
Dems are working with some high expectations:
-When asked which Party they believe would cut taxes for the middle-class 42% said the Democrats while only 29% chose the Republicans.
-When asked which Party will work toward reducing the deficit 47% chose the Democrats while only 22% chose the Republicans.
-Again, when asked who will keep government spending under control the Democrats held a 17 point edge (38% Democrats, 21% Republicans).
Any talk of tax hikes or increased spending is not going to go over well with the folks who just put them in power.
2 years…
Yikes 42% think the Democrats will be able to cut taxes for the middle class? Sigh. I guess the good news is that it wasn’t 51%. I wonder what percentage of the 42% also wants national health care?
I have a vivid recollection of the TIME magazine cover following the 1994 mid-terms. It had a blazing headline “Storm Across America” over a photo of a twister.
I wonder what it will be (already is?) this time?
Wow. Those RedState folks sure do like their pop history analogies.
OC Steve and Sebastian,
Isn’t this just standard fare? I want my taxes cut and the defict reduced and spending (that I like, not the bad kind) increased?
It’s a bit curious looking back on the way this general attitude has shifted in Canada over the past 10 or so years. A few years ago a bunch of right wing US wannabes led by the National Post made a big effort to start (actually they were claiming it was already underway) a “tax revolt” while also advocating for (small) debt reduction and big, BIG increases in military spending. It went nowhere I think because the large majority of the electorate here seems to have a firm grip on the idea that you should pay for what you get.
So, under the Liberals and now under the Torys we get debt being retired, modest spending increases (with trims here and there), and modest tax reductions here and there. And I am happy.
Yikes 42% think the Democrats will be able to cut taxes for the middle class?
Is it just me, or do others think that these questions have been deployed so often, without any information about what taxes and services are at issue (or even what middle class means), that it is actually meaningless in determining what policies to follow?
Personally I hope Harry Reid has already scheduled meetings with Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe to discuss the results in New England, speculate on how much more he’s going to like being in the majority than the minority, and ask them about their future goals and plans….
I think the term “far left” has no connection to a person’s beliefs or preferred policies. The right tried to put that label on any Democrat who was feisty and not intimidated. It was a ploy to marginalize people who might effectively fight back against rightwingers. That’s why Dean got the label even though he’s a moderate with some conservative positions. It’s just a framing term with no actual connnections to a person’s political stances.
Sebastian:
Well, you’re right. Americans, in general, need to stop whining about taxes.
Too bad it’s the national sport.
“Yikes 42% think the Democrats will be able to cut taxes for the middle class?”
I should have a link, but I do believe there is a Democratic plan to adjust the Bush tax cuts to redistribute the benefits downwards. With no net change in revenue.
As I said in another thread, I think the Democrats will pretty much make those 2010, or somewhat different, tax cuts permanent. Everything will be about 2008. Liberals are not going to be overjoyed.
Some of what I read sounds crazy, like ending oil subsidies to fund alt-energy; or counting on a “peace dividend” to provide funds for new programs. But it appears Pelosi is deadly serious about PayGo, and giving at least a temporary appearance of fiscal probity.
I also think they will b doing something about taxes on the middle class, rolling back the tax cuts on the top 2% and avoiding elimination of the estate tax. I don’t think most people would have any problem with any of that.
On a different point, and one I haven’t seen much in the media about, nor on this thread, is the extent of this victory for the Democrats.
And by that I mean on the state level, and not just governorships. The Democrats no control 15 state legislatures by owning both houses. Over 200 seats changed hands across the country, even in the South. In my local very conservative Reublican area northwest of Chicago, the state representative for the last 22 years went down to defeat, and a Democrat w2on the seat in the state Senate for the first time that I can recall.
This is what the Republicans really have to worry about. They built their party into what it is from the local level on up and it appears the Dems are doing the same thing.
Maybe Dean isn’t so crazy after all.
Sorry about all the typos.
Dean is incredibly vilified, based on the distortions of liberalism v. conservatism. He’s an “extremist liberal” – based on what? Because he’s a Democrat? Because he signed the bill allowing same-sex civil unions in Vermont? Because he’s feisty?
Regarding taxes, they’re going to have to be raised, because there’s no other way out of the hole we’re in. The last time we had balanced budget was under Clinton, and he had to raise taxes to do it. Raising taxes on the top 5% and reviving the estate tax (with an exemption raised to $5 million) are relatively painless options. Cutting spending would not be – mostly because the programs sure to be cut are already so underfunded they can barely accomplish their missions.
The biggest difference I hope the Democratic majority can make is in the quality of legislation and debate. No more sneaking egregious earmarks into thousand-page bills – and no more setting votes so soon after the bills are delivered that no one can read them thoroughly before voting. No more empty sound-bites and slogans passing for debate. No more letting major contributors’ lobbyists write legislation.
the Democrats will pretty much make those 2010, or somewhat different, tax cuts permanent.
Read MaxSpeak for what that would mean to the fiscal picture.
The tax cuts expire automatically; Congress would have to vote affirmatively to make them permanent.
In other words, what are you smoking, guy?
“Regarding taxes, they’re going to have to be raised, because there’s no other way out of the hole we’re in.”
Yup, I think one of the first things that Pelosi and Reid should do is to call some conferences where they basically pull the fire alarm and describe the magnitude of the damage that has been done over the last six years.
People are going to be shocked when they realize how much of their money the drunken sailor has run through. And how little everyone but the super-rich got for it.
But the party is over now. The grown-ups haven’t been able to take away all of the keys–Junior still has the keys to the army, alas–but we can at least keep his hands off the check-book.
The party is over, and the country is littered with damage. You don’t see it if you’re a wealthy corporate Republican, or if your idea of economic health begins and ends with the Dow.
But the damage to the working class and its economic future has been immense. There is a crisis in our finances, caused by Bush’s profligacy.
It is Bush who has raised the taxes for our children and grandchildren, by running up the debt far beyond anything left by the Clinton administration.
We can reduce the Bush tax increases on our children if we start paying them down in advance.
Bush tax. Pay it now, so that our kids pay less later. Cause one way or another, Bush already spent it.
“In other words, what are you smoking, guy?”
Dorals.
It is four years. But we will likely be in acknowledged recession in six months, and I don’t know deep it will be, or how long it will last.
If the three choices during economic slowdown (and war) are tax increases, trillion-dollar deficits, or entitlement cuts, I would say all three are politically impossible.
and as kid blitzer says, there we are. 🙂
Yes, thanks to unnamed people who put a psycho in the white house in 2000. May they never be forgiven.
No more sneaking egregious earmarks into thousand-page bills – and no more setting votes so soon after the bills are delivered that no one can read them thoroughly before voting. No more empty sound-bites and slogans passing for debate. No more letting major contributors’ lobbyists write legislation.
1. none of that was a major campaign issue.
2. very little of that is a Republican-only failing.
3. a lot of that is what politicians do.
lobbyists have always written bills. ex. the DMCA, and the “Sonny Bono” copyright act before it, was written by lobbyists and signed by Clinton. playing the rules to your own advantage is what politicians do.
don’t trick yourself into thinking poltiicans won’t be politicians. our only hope is that this batch will, on balance, do more good than evil.
let me add…
that’s not to say i don’t think the Dems will be better. i just don’t think they’re going to be perfect.
OK, I can’t resist this. It’s time us democrats let Andrew and OCSteve in on the real platform.
Let the glorious revolution begin, Commrades!
I’m far from convinced that the general public is so thoroughly opposed to all tax increases. What I do find is folks unwilling to pay when they think they’re getting ripped off, and willing to pay when they see a connection between what they pay and what gets done. I also find, listening in to conversations in stores, barber shop, and the like, a lot of folks looking for reasons to feel hopeful. Often pretty desperate for it. They also feel isolated and detached from the country’s affairs.
The Republicans could have owned that desire to belong – it’s a staple of several threads in conservatism, after all. But the mercantile branch is actively hostile to it, preferring to treat citizens only as employees and customers, and theocrats only want community with the right dogma. I haven’t any idea whether the Democrats can pick up on this, and my prophet’s license was suspended on election day until I undergo a refresher course. But I see possibilities there.
OCSteve: I’ll add Lieberman to the list. It was always like wearing a raw steak around your neck and walking into the lion’s den over at BJ too.
Interestingly, while I haven’t liked Lieberman in several years, and even called for him to be removed from the party back in 2004, I didn’t really dislike him at a personal level — in other words, I didn’t really consider him a bad person — until this year. The way he comported himself through the election, though… that was a whole new barrel o’ ugly, and one that I doubt I’ll soon forgive.
Hi again… Just wanted to relate a story –
I saw Nancy Pelosi in NYC on vacation on Saturday night. I was at a restaurant near the village and our waiter came by and told us who was in the booth 10 feet away. She was with some younger people, nobody I recognized anyways. On the way out, my buddy wished her luck on Tuesday. Looks like it worked…
Jes sez: “M.U.N.C.L.E., M*A*S*H, MacGyver. I only like to slash men from TV series beginning with M. ;-)”
M.U.N.C.L.E. — that’s my youth. Maybe you should try the L’s. Life on Mars seems to have some possibilities. OTOH, what do I know, my wife is still doing B7
Sebastian: “I wonder what percentage of the 42% also wants national health care?”
Well, I personally want every US citizen to be able to be covered under a national health INSURANCE. For what is it worth, I completely disagree with the idea of a national health care system. Unfortunately, many confuse the two terms (insurance vs. health care system) as being one and the same. In my mind, (and this is a subject I am extremely passionate about) why should any TAX PAYING citizen of the United States be unable to receive the benefits of federally funded biomedical research because they are without insurance (how many out there are working for a small businesses which cannot afford to provide coverage for their employees)? This to me is the huge problem with having US healthcare insurance rely on an employee benefit system. An old statistic is that 45 million (tax paying) Americans are uninsured. Should those 45 million be unable to benefit from the biomedical research that their taxpayer dollars contributed towards? For instance, federally funded research funded studies in which a new technology (RNAi; discoverer just won the Nobel prize) showed a possible gene therapy approach to curing cystic fibrosis through therapeutic means. Federally funded research has created cancer vaccines, which are reaching phase III clinical trials and will become a novel form of cancer treatment. All of this research is funded through federal tax money, (NIH…. etc… even DOD funds….) but how can we deny the benefits of this research based upon whether your employer provides health insurance? Is healthcare a benefit or a right?
I am by no means attacking you here. I saw your question as a way to elaborate ideas that I hold very close to my heart and think about every day. All I am trying to say is that the research being conducted these days is so flat-out amazing (and diseases so horrible) that I cannot even fathom being able to justify considering healthcare as a benefit. I have been lucky enough to consider adequate medical attention as a normal part of my life; but I can tell you that there are a huge number of Americans that cannot say the same thing.
After 2004, I felt as though the Twin Towers had just been knocked down a second time–and by domestic terrorists. Mourning in America.
What the hell is this, the Oprah show?
Man up, kid bitzer. Act like you’ve been there before.
Sheesh. I’m angry enough without your crying jubilation. What, I’m supposed to be so happy for you because I’m the runner up in the Miss America pageant? Get a grip.
fledermaus just let the mask slip.
I suspected that. Damn you all!
fledermaus just let the mask slip.
I suspected that. Damn you all!
I’m supposed to be so happy for you because I’m the runner up in the Miss America pageant?
Remember, DaveC, all these girls are winners…
DaveC: What, I’m supposed to be so happy for you because I’m the runner up in the Miss America pageant?
And with only two girls competing, at that. 😉
OCSteve: I do believe I like that. I don’t know if he has the fund raising chops, but I quite like the idea of it.
Election day reminiscences from a Steele campaign worker:
OK, I can’t resist this. It’s time us democrats let Andrew and OCSteve in on the real platform.
Damn. I had a feeling…
😉
I see in the NYT that the current story from the WH is that the President decided to fire Rumsfeld in the summer, but just hadn’t decided when. I’d be curious to know what supporters of the President, and of Rumsfeld, are supposed to make of this. They were out on the hustings, and other parts of the public square, arguing for something that wasn’t reality. Any ideas?
OT: My son just asked why, if we elect the Register of Wills, we don’t elect the Secretary of Defense.
(Yesterday when we passed a very pathetic little handmade sign for the Republican candidate for the position, he asked what the ROW does. After the [somewhat vague] explanation, why such a person would be elected on a partisan basis. I had no good answer.)
Naturally, I got a couple of sentences into a discussion of federalism before I could see that he was totally pulling my leg. That is, it took him asking me where in the line of presidential succession the ROW stood.
I got a couple of sentences into a discussion of federalism before I could see that he was totally pulling my leg
Sounds like he would fit in well here and you both could follow in the footsteps of Anarch and dr ngo.
Ha! Not enough about games. He’s more of an SF guy than me, though.
I just did the math, and see that anyone under 30 is closer to his age than to mine. The figure for my daughter is 34 which, now that I think about it, tells me something about the expressions on the faces of Unfoggetarians ‘Dagger Aleph’ and ‘A White Bear’ the other night when I told them how old she is.
Danged improperly closed blockquotes.
It is four years. But we will likely be in acknowledged recession in six months, and I don’t know deep it will be, or how long it will last.
If the three choices during economic slowdown (and war) are tax increases, trillion-dollar deficits, or entitlement cuts, I would say all three are politically impossible.
Had you asked me, in 2000, to put together an expensive tax-cut package tailor made to not stimulate the economy and actually lead to economic stagnation I couldn’t have done better than what Bush pushed.
The “Bush tax cuts” suck as economic stimulus. They target exactly the wrong areas of the economy. This was true in 2000, and it’s doubly true now because not only are we heading into a massive drop in demand (the credit line is ending, my friends and wages have stagnated while costs rose) but the business side is also sucking wind because everyone is simply marking time until they see what the heck the government does about the unsustainable budget problem.
You want economic stimulus? Roll back the high-end tax cuts. Roll back the capital gains tax cuts. (Yes, there is a point where increasing capital gains taxes start cutting into investment. The Clinton rate was below that). Fix the AMT. Reinstate the estate tax — that’ll convince the business world you’re serious about spending.
If you have to stimulate the demand side, you offer targetted and temporary cuts at the middle and lower classes.
Bush’s tax cuts PLUS the drunken spending are a huge part of the problem — not some magically solution sitting around in the wings. Repealing his idoicy and making strides towards fiscal sanity will do more to restore the ecomony than anything else.
And don’t even get me started about some form of universal health coverage. Do you know how much it would help the American corporate bottom line — as well as that of their workers — if we paid Canadian rates for insurance? Healthier and longer lives for everyone at half the price we pay now?
Pah! Elected government!
Skull and bones still runs everything, only back behind the scenes where it belongs.
Wait…no, it’s these guys:
I will never forgive the Stonecutters for Steve Guttenberg.
I’m still hoping (hope! hope!) that hilzoy will offer some thoughts about priorities for the new Democratic majorities on Capitol Hill.
In the meanwhile, Brad DeLong links to these good starting thoughts from Susanne Nossel:
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2006/11/we_win_now_what.html
Short version: Congress’s power is limited; don’t promise more than you can deliver.
Hilzoy, I gave $100 to Webb based on your post here recommending it. Nice targeting! I feel like I helped make a difference.
Yikes 42% think the Democrats will be able to cut taxes for the middle class? Sigh. I guess the good news is that it wasn’t 51%. I wonder what percentage of the 42% also wants national health care?
Maybe they just believe the supply-siders. Cut taxes enough and we’ll soon have huge surpluses. Then we can have national health care and hardly miss the money.
One thing that makes it hard to make credible predictions about the Congressional races in 2008 is that 2008 is, of course, a presidential election year, and turnout and partisan sympathy of independents will be determined heavily by what people think about the presidential candidates. If the Dems choose a really bad nominee, the Republicans run John McCain, and McCain’s inexplicable public image as a moderate of integrity holds, his coattails could undo everything we’ve done.
Election day reminiscences from a Steele campaign worker:
and we all know what punishment awaits evil Republicans… promotion!
I think that 42% is misleading. If asked the question “Between the Democrat and Republican parties, which is best described by the following phrases?” I’d probably answer “Democrats” to the phrase “will cut taxes for the middle class” as well. That doesn’t necessarily mean I expect or want them to cut those taxes.
Well, at least they didn’t do anything Gilliardesque with his photo. So they have that going for them.
What are you saying, Slarti?
Probably I ought to have linked to Gilliardesque, but I figured everyone had seen that.
Who are the “they” in that sentence, Slarti?
Sorry, visitor coming from http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/11/ap_nbc_call_va_.html at 82.41.225.44. You don’t have permission to see /images/racism_big2.jpg
KC, as you know, the correct answer to that question is ‘Democrat party? I’ve never heard of any such organization. Are you asking me about the Democratic party?’
True, Charley, but I didn’t want to set up that derailing, especially since we already seem to be heading into a discussion of whether a blogger posting a blackface photo is worse than a candidate busing in homeless people to hand out fake sample ballots with false endorsements. But no doubt we’ve all misunderstood Slarti again.
So they have that going for them.
and the Republicans have another slimy crook leading their party. the Dems have a stiff, kind of awkward, former doctor, who seems to be squeaky clean.
compare. contrast.
Slartibartfast: Probably I ought to have linked to Gilliardesque, but I figured everyone had seen that.
I know what you meant by “Gilliardesque”. What I don’t understand is what you meant by the sentences surrounding the word. I’m giving you a chance to explain, rather than making assumptions about what you meant. So please explain.
I would compare and contrast, only TPMmuckraker’s link points to an article that only talks about Denny Hastert. I wasn’t able to find Steele as the current head of the RNC in any of the major media outlets, so TMPMR must have scooped them all.
In other news, rumor has it that Alcee Hastings, a former judge who was impeached for taking bribes, is being considered to head up House Intelligence by the incoming House Speaker from the Party of Ethics.
Pass the popcorn, please.
When I click the TPMMuckraker link, I get this Washington Times article.
Slarti: A number of years ago the local Freemasons hired our choir to sing at a shindig of theirs, and I’m pissed off to this day that our director wouldn’t let me/us sing the Stonecutter’s song to them as an encore. I even printed out the lyrics and everything.
Eek. Right. Dunno how that happened.
You are right about the possibilty of Hastings getting the chair. You are also right thhat it would be an extremely bad move–bad substantively and in terms of politics.
On the other hand, I am enjoying the Charlie Rangel show. I hope he does kick Cheney out of the old Ways and Means office.
Gromit: I’m giving you a chance to explain, rather than making assumptions about what you meant. So please explain.
*crickets chirping*
Figures.
Yikes 42% think the Democrats will be able to cut taxes for the middle class?
Howard Dean said the Democrats would “find a way” to give the middle class a tax cut. He flat-out said it. If it turns out to be an unrealistic expectation, blame him for creating it; but we’re not there yet.
lobbyists have always written bills. ex. the DMCA, and the “Sonny Bono” copyright act before it, was written by lobbyists and signed by Clinton.
I don’t believe lobbyists wrote the bills before 1994.
Anarch:
I suspect that Lieberman will caucus with the Democrats because the Republicans can’t make him as good an offer as they, but make no mistake: he’s a dishonest, egotistical ratf*** who’s only in it for himself. And I say this as someone who thought he’d make a good VP candidate in 2000; I don’t know if I simply misjudged him then or if he really changed as dramatically as all that, but I’m astonishingly grateful that he never attained that office.
I think Lieberman’s schtick will be to continually flirt and drop the hints about a party shift (in the name of bipartisanship, of course) in order to get what he wants, and it remains to be seen if the Repubs think it worth their while to offer him a big enough prize to get him to turn. I think Lieberman is in hog heaven now.
What is good is that he can no longer be claim to be a Democratic Party voice, and his continued treachery will not have the same political impact. He can be labeled as a cranky independent out of the party because of his contrarian views.
2012 is an eternity from now — who knows what he’ll do then.
It is interesting to reflect back on 2000 and how Lieberman got catapulted into that position — criticize Clinton and get picked by Gore so that Gore could put symbolic distance between himself and Clinton’s sordid behavior. Its actually the early version of his current strategy in which he slays his own in order to climb higher. It may have looked like a principled stance by Lieberman at the time, but in reflection I would surmise that it was just round one in his game. Now that we have seen the same behavior repeated over several rounds, it’s easier to put round one in context.
OCSteve:
The DNC supported Lieberman, until he lost his party’s nomination. Even then, many Dems still supported Lieberman, and the support for Lamont was tepid (probably because he immediately fell behind in the opost primary polls, and never closed the gap). Lieberman clearly ran the more sleazy campaign, and consantly misrepresented his prior positions in order to survive (and Lamont failed to convince the electorate that he was anything more than a one issue candidate, I think) — Lieberman won by appealing more to Republicans than Democrats, while retaining enough loyalty from Democrats to win. Kind of like Schwarzenegger changing his stripes to remain in power, only Lieberman is a more extreme version.
It’s hard to see contested primary elections as anything other than healthy for democracy. The fact that some believe Lieberman is entitled to resent all the terrible, terrible people who sponsored this primary challenge strikes me as rather odd. Don’t such attitudes just further the sense of entitlement that incumbent politicians seem to possess?
Since Slarti’s raised the Hastings-Harman Intel Committee fight (in an apparent effort to change the subject from Steele as RNC chair), I’ll point to a WaPo article from last fall that gives background. This is the heart of the issue:
Nancy Pelosi isn’t surveying the field of 230 Democrats and deciding that Alcee Hastings is the best candidate for chair of the Intel Committee. Seniority means something, and has put Pelosi in a tough spot politically.
Utterly safe seats tend to foster corruption. Hastings is in one. So are Maxine Waters and John Murtha, and they have a bit of taint as well.
I’m not sure why the prospect of this internal Dem fight fills Slarti with such glee. Maybe he can explain that, if he’s reluctant to address Gromit’s question.
I swore off discussing Lieberman yesterday…
Look – over there, a unicorn!
(How about a fresh thread – somebody?)
🙂
I understand the political situation that puts Hastings in a position for that chairmanship, but still, it’s like leading with your chin. Democrats will be mocked for it, and “we had to make the black guys happy” certainly isn’t going to work as an explanation. What, was Dan Rostenkowski unavailable?
“I’m not sure why the prospect of this internal Dem fight fills Slarti with such glee.”
There isn’t likely to be much of a fight. Hastings will get the spot which pretty much makes my point about the idea that the Democratic Party has some sort of innate resistance to corruption becuase of its ‘progressive’ ideals.
Before a new post goes up, I want to express deep thanks to Hilzoy and those who responded to her encouragement to contribute to the Webb campaign. With such a slim margin, it should be clear that every single dollar made a difference.
This post about Jim Webb by a Democratic Charlottesville blogger is bracing. I believe it understates Webb’s anti-corporate populism, but the major point is absolutely correct:
OT: For the Canucks – Howard Dean to speak at Liberal party leadership convention in December.
the idea that the Democratic Party has some sort of innate resistance to corruption becuase of its ‘progressive’ ideals
Never having agreed with, much less articulated, that idea, I don’t feel particularly stung by the charge of hypocrisy wrt the Hastings chairmanship.
The corruption in question is also not systemic party business (a la Steele/DeLay/Cunningham/Ney/Lewis), but personal. It’s also been punished. Voters in Hastings’ district sent him to Congress enough times in a row that he gained seniority, so here we are.
And, Steve, the Democratic Party’s success, now and in the future, absolutely depends on the strength of support from black voters, and voters of color generally. Even in this great 56% national tide, 51% of white voters still went Republican.
Ahem. It’s not as if I haven’t raised this subject before, but it is refreshing to see people responding to it.
It’s not that I want to be entertained by this. I’d be much happier if the people doing the governing were much less troublesome than the policies. If it’s important, write your congressman.
And, Steve, the Democratic Party’s success, now and in the future, absolutely depends on the strength of support from black voters, and voters of color generally.
Of course it does. Again, when people say “How could you let that impeached judge run the intelligence committee?” is this really going to be your answer? The black vote is important?
Anyway, I think your first post was more accurate, in that this is less about keeping the black vote, and more about keeping peace with the CBC as one of the important factions within the majority coalition.
“Never having agreed with, much less articulated, that idea, I don’t feel particularly stung by the charge of hypocrisy wrt the Hastings chairmanship.”
Great, but it has been articulated and seconded rather recently so take it as a response to people like dmbeaster and gwangung.
And really I’m not charging hypocrisy, I’m noting how quickly the importance of avoiding corruption becomes subordinated to other aims. It is part of my ongoing understanding about why I don’t like to give government lots of say in my life.
Crap, I knew the high was too good to last.
Less than 72 hours after a euphoric victory, we’ve already got to deal with the incredibly bad planning that puts Alcee Hastings in as Ethics Chair, plus that moron Carville, who couldn’t wait to stick a knife in Dean’s back.
I’m really, really pissed.
While you’re pissed, write Speaker-elect Pelosi and let her know how you feel about Hastings. It’s not even close to too late.
Meet the new boss(es).
It’s not that I want to be entertained by this.
Well, I do. Right now I’m being entertained by the prospect of making Michael “I was for the Republican Party before I was against it back before I was for it again” Steele chair of the RNC. At least he won’t have trouble staffing his offices.
FWIW, I’m not too thrilled by Hastings, either. I call for a new Battle Of.
OCSteve, if you think Lieberman is an honorable man concerned with civility, you may want to take a look at his campaign site and see that it now consists mainly of a link to this spittle-flecked gloating from Marshall Wittmann. That’s class.
As a Democrat, my main concern about corruption at this point is that we keep the cleanest noses possible. This is not only good government, in the long run it’s good politics too. Voters understand corruption, and it plays a big part in power swings.
A few years from now, it’s not going to be very helpful to argue, “Hey, we’ve got some crooks, but not as many as the Republicans had in 2006.”
So I hope Pelosi, Reid, etc. pay a lot of attention, not just lip service, to this.
“Never having agreed with, much less articulated, that idea, I don’t feel particularly stung by the charge of hypocrisy wrt the Hastings chairmanship.”
Great, but it has been articulated and seconded rather recently so take it as a response to people like dmbeaster and gwangung.
It’s not a deeply held belief; it was something thrown out there as a possible explanation (though I should note that I was thinking on a systemic level, rather on an individual level, of broad tendencies rather than absolute determinants–there’s not enough information to say either way).
“It’s not a deeply held belief; it was something thrown out there as a possible explanation (though I should note that I was thinking on a systemic level, rather on an individual level, of broad tendencies rather than absolute determinants–there’s not enough information to say either way).”
Right, but selecting committee chairmanships is a systemic issue. Having a party which is willing ignore blatant examples of corruption to engage in racial gamesmanship is a systemic issue.
In isolation, yes, but this isn’t an isolated system, and there are multiple influences/tendencies at play.
Still disappointing.
“In isolation, yes, but this isn’t an isolated system, and there are multiple influences/tendencies at play.”
I don’t understand what you mean by this. The multiple influences/tendencies at play are exactly what I mean by “systemic”. The system values certain characteristics Hastings has (his race) more than it devalues negative characteristics he has (his corruption).
Sebastian: have you seen this yet?
OCSteve, if you think Lieberman is an honorable man concerned with civility…
I threw in the towel yesterday. Unicorns! Look!
Less than 72 hours after a euphoric victory, we’ve already got to deal with the incredibly bad planning that puts Alcee Hastings in as Ethics Chair, plus that moron Carville, who couldn’t wait to stick a knife in Dean’s back.
Kudos.
Steele – I was a supporter and wanted to vote for him, did not in the end. But I think he is a good guy. I haven’t seen anything tie this thing directly to him yet, and it seemed to be more about Ehrlich. Some committee paid for the flyers. We all mostly agreed that some third party organization does not mean the national party has responsibility.
He has been using “Steele Democrats” for a while, implying he has a lot of support from Democrats (and he did). I have yet to see a really honest political flyer, and don’t expect to in my lifetime. If a crime was committed, then I expect charges to be filed and I will reconsider my support.
Obviously it was misleading and sleazy, you will get no argument from me. I just don’t know at this point how much to blame Steele personally for. We’ll see.
He did great with outreach to black (D) voters. The RNC has been trying to do that with some success, but not significant. At least in MD, black voters are no longer willing to swear allegiance to the Democratic Party with little or nothing to show in return.
If he can do at the national level what he did at the state level – Democrats are in trouble in 2 years. Don’t get comfy.
BSG night. I’m outa here.
I don’t understand what you mean by this. The multiple influences/tendencies at play are exactly what I mean by “systemic”. The system values certain characteristics Hastings has (his race) more than it devalues negative characteristics he has (his corruption).
Ah. I mean systemic is that the influences MAY be ameloriated a bit by the paradigms that drive the Democratic party, not that they would be eliminated entirely. And systemic would be taking all those influences into account, but that there is no single cause that turns the corruption on or off.
Like I said, not that I entirely believe it–I could be off base.
How about a thread about this. Boy, we sure live in interesting times…
In principle, I would much rather that American war criminals be tried and punished by American courts.
That way not only is justice done, but there is also a message sent, both to the people of this nation and to the people of the world, that we are a nation that truly believes in the rule of law in general, and in the laws governing human rights, torture, the waging of wars, etc. in particular.
However, if the nation forfeits on the opportunities to punish its own for a sufficiently long time, then justice still must be done. War criminals still must be prosecuted and punished.
It’s only a shame that the message that is sent in that case is that America does *not* care about human rights etc. after all.
Sebastian: selecting committee chairmanships is a systemic issue. Having a party which is willing ignore blatant examples of corruption to engage in racial gamesmanship
I don’t call choosing to pass over a black Congressman entitled by seniority for the job for the second time in three years “racial gamesmanship”. I call it “avoiding a serious inflammatory snub.”
OCSteve seems to have a good grasp on the grievances of the Prince Georges’ County Dems who endorsed Steele. I do too; I’m damned glad it didn’t cost Cardin the election and Democrats the Senate, because it makes it more likely that the message got through. Doesn’t that help you understand the position of the Congressional Black Caucus on Hastings and the Intel job?
Anyone here catch the NPR commemoration of the Nuremberg Trial’s 60th Anniversary?
Interviewees commented on why the Tribunal had to be international. One reason given was, so that it wouldn’t be seen as “victor’s justice,” but as the result of a fair trial. Also, because the crimes were against humanity – violations of human rights, which are universal, rather than a benison any one country happens to allow its inhabitants.
One thing they mentioned which I had never heard or, or thought of, before was the effect film evidence had on the defendants – and the world at large.
Apparently, the Trials didn’t get a lot of attention at first. Most everyone was more interested in recovering from the war and Germans, particularly, were firmly in denial.
Then the prosecutors found the Nazi’s own filmed records of the meetings spent deciding on and planning the Final Solution (some of the film had to be rescued from a fireplace where defendants had tried to burn it) and Allied Army filmed accounts of the concentration camps. The world sat up and took notice. And some of the defendants were stunned, either because they’d never before seen exactly what their policies and orders actually meant in action (according to the prosecuting attorney in the interview); or (I think more likely) because they didn’t expect the evidence to still be around.
Another reason for preserving, and showing, the films (one I’ve heard frequently) was to make sure no one could ever say the Nazi Holocuast never happened. Of course, that reckoned without the Deniers, who still manage somehow to not only dismiss the evidence as lies or exaggerations, but also manage to convince other people of that as well.
However, if the nation forfeits on the opportunities to punish its own for a sufficiently long time, then justice still must be done. War criminals still must be prosecuted and punished.
That is the principle of the International Criminal Court…
I somehow doubt that Rumsfeld will set foot in the European Union again. (Unless he thinks he can get away with going to the UK, but I wouldn’t advise him to do that unless he can manage to convince medical examiners that he has dementia and is unfit to stand trial.)
Why would Rumsfeld want to visit old Europe anyway? There’s nothing there but chocolate factories, right?
Why would Rumsfeld want to visit old Europe anyway? There’s nothing there but chocolate factories, right?
Donald and the Chocolate Factory?
“I don’t call choosing to pass over a black Congressman entitled by seniority for the job for the second time in three years “racial gamesmanship”. I call it “avoiding a serious inflammatory snub.”
Entitled to? Just because the voters of his district don’t care doesn’t mean that the Democratic Party has to put him in a position of power. And avoiding a ‘serious inflammatory snub’ is fine. That is what I mean when I talk about a system indifferent to corruption. Indifferent means that they don’t care about it enough for it even make minor differences in how things work. That’s fine. I get it. Everyone does it. I’m not particularly shocked to find that either of the two parties likely to control Congress in any given year don’t care so much. Once again, not particularly a critique of Democratic Congressional practice as a critique of Congressional practice.
OCSteve: If you were wondering why I had such unpleasant things to say about Joe Lieberman, well, this is why.
I don’t have all that much of a problem with that sort of thing, Anarch. I’d prefer to have someone equipped with their own sense of what’s right that I disagree with than someone who’s ticket-punching the party line.
My problem with Jeffords when he jumped ship is not that he did jump ship, but that he did so having been elected as a Republican. Looking back, my level of caring about that whole mess is not worth hanging onto.
And of course I reserve the right to change this opinion if and when it becomes convenient to do so.
Oh dear. If Lieberman caucuses with the Republicans I am so not going to look forward to the constrast in rhetoric between Jefford’s “principled stand” and Lieberman’s crass betrayal.
I won’t set myself up for failure by saying I won’t comment on it, but I really shouldn’t comment on it.
Slarti: I’d prefer to have someone equipped with their own sense of what’s right that I disagree with than someone who’s ticket-punching the party line.
I would too provided they’re actually following their sense of what’s right and not, e.g., shilling for the highest bidder.
Sebastian: I am so not going to look forward to the constrast in rhetoric between Jefford’s “principled stand” and Lieberman’s crass betrayal.
I’ll give you something to chew on until that time comes: Jeffords really did make a principled stand, and Lieberman really is a crass betrayer 😉
Well of course! Milk subsidies are important. Important in a spoiled way, but important nonetheless. 🙂
Seems to me that Jeffords had come to be more to the left than a number of Democrats and all other Republicans (more due to the Rs moving right than him moving left) so it was reasonable for him to switch.
Lieberman could have run as a Republican if he wanted to. He ran (I think) promising to caucus as a Democrat. It would I think be unseemly for him to switch in the short term. If he can point to string of disagreements with the Democratic hierarchy over the next friedman or two, then I’d be less likely to consider a switch by him a crass betrayal.
“It would I think be unseemly for him to switch in the short term. If he can point to string of disagreements with the Democratic hierarchy over the next friedman or two, then I’d be less likely to consider a switch by him a crass betrayal.”
Jeffords switched six months after the election and after being seated for less than four.
Lieberman isn’t threatening to switch now, he is noting that he might switch if the Democratic Party makes him ‘uncomfortable’. This switch of conscience is exactly what Jeffords claimed.
“Seems to me that Jeffords had come to be more to the left than a number of Democrats and all other Republicans (more due to the Rs moving right than him moving left) so it was reasonable for him to switch.”
He was already that when he ran for office the last time. Why didn’t he switch then? Why run as a Republican, get elected as a Republican and then switch less than half a year later? At least Lieberman ran as an Independent.
BTW, I’m really just playing devil’s advocate. I think Jeffords made an incredibly scummy move and if Lieberman plays the game I think it is barely less scummy because he ran as an independent. But those who think Jeffords did something positively good and that Lieberman talking about it is super-scummy, are going to have to engage in some rather contorted arguments.
Well of course! Milk subsidies are important. Important in a spoiled way, but important nonetheless. 🙂
Much like a $1.65 trillion tax cut that’s done such faaaaaabulous things to the economy. (:
This switch of conscience is exactly what Jeffords claimed.
True enough, but in Jeffords’ case it was plausible: see, for instance, the tax cut I mentioned above, and GOP retribution on same. That’s not so here.
At least Lieberman ran as an Independent.
Well, no. He ran, and lost, as a Democrat. He then ran as an Independent, heavily supported by Republican monies, endorsements and (I think) ground campaigns, and won. He’s now proclaiming himself an Independent Democrat — whatever the hell that means — and appears to be doing the same egocentric (almost narcissistic) fandango that has caused people like me to call for his ouster from the party for the last several years. It’s the All Lieberman All The Time Show, same as before, in which our spoiled child of a hero gets to be courted as the prettiest at the ball, while Americans and Iraqis die to service his petulance.
Ah well. In six years, he’s toast. Democracy rolls on.
N.B. a friedman unit = six months. If in six months the Democrats have a track record that Lieberman can say is inconsistent with the will of CT voters and his conscience, I probably won’t complain out loud. For one thing, it would be useful if Lieberman had to push Republican talking points on Fox and the Sunday shows as an avowed Republican.
Still wondering whether Snowe or someone like that might switch over to rebalance things.
The Army Times has caught Fox News disease:
For one thing, it would be useful if Lieberman had to push Republican talking points on Fox and the Sunday shows as an avowed Republican.
He won’t, though. He’ll do it as an Independent Democrat, mournfully declaring that the party left him and praying through his crocodile tears that they’ll one day return to sense. Same BS he does now, actually, only he’ll have added an adjective.