The People Have Spoken
Yesterday’s election bought much good news. Pollsters and pundits got it right, election machinery worked fairly well, Democrats won a significant majority in the House and in State Governorships, Democratic control of the Senate only depends on whether Webb’s slim lead in Virginia will hold up on a protracted recount (it will be interesting to see if Republicans choose litigation in the event the recount holds for Webb). But the best news of all is the people spoke and threw the bums out, so our democracy still works.
The Bush press conference this morning was a little different. The number of his frat boy humor attempts was way down, especially after his opener, “Why so glum?” fell flat. Bush indulged his usual panoply of platitudes and tried to save some face by saying the election actually was close - in some of the contests - and then finally admitting “we got thumped”. There were two particular questions that got my attention, one on Rumsfeld and one on the District of Columbia.
Everyone seems surprised Rumsfeld is out. Not me. There has been an escalating parade of reasons for him to resign and a growing chorus calling for his head, culminating in the editorial of the service newspapers saying it was time for him to go. The surprise emanated from the vehement Rumsfeld endorsement by Bush just a week ago, saying Rummy would stay the course of Bush’s two years to go. But why does anyone still believe anything Bush says? What was interesting this morning is that Bush actually admitted he lied to the reporters a week ago, offering as an excuse the non-sequitur that he did not want any announcement about Rumsfeld to affect the election and that he had not fully completed making the decision to fire him because he had not yet interviewed the intended successor (Robert Gates, another Bush family insider who led the CIA under Bush I) and he had not yet given Rummy his final exit interview. Nobody asked Bush if Rummy would still be in had the Republicans prevailed Tuesday; but Bush could have declined to answer that since he refuses to answer hypothetical questions.
The other question I found interesting was whether Bush supported the plan that has been floating around for a while to give the District of Columbia a voting member in the House (an obvious Democratic vote) while simultaneously adding one more in Utah (definitely a Republican). Bush said that was the first time he had ever heard that suggestion and he did not have an opinion on it. My curiosity is piqued by which of the Bush deficiencies was on display in his answer, his uninformed ignorance and total disregard of the political desire of the overwhelmingly black population of the District in which the White House is located, or his inherent penchant for dishonesty.
Lots of Democrats deserve credit for the election outcome. Howard Dean pushed to have Democratic candidates in all areas of the country, conceding nothing to Republicans, and Democrats picked up seats in unexpected places. Senator Schumer and Representative Emmanuel spearheaded a drive to field viable centrist Democrats for seats where that was a prerequisite, and the candidates did a good job of staying on message. I am disappointed that Republican Reichert in my district may have just barely edged into a re-election he definitely did not deserve (he actually declined to respond to the AARP candidate survey questions on issues of interest to senior citizens).
The real star to rise from this election is one who has been almost imperceptibly on the horizon for years - Nancy Pelosi. This is a lady who knows what she is doing and how to do it. She has been low key, but now that she is to become the first woman Speaker in history, she will be quite visible. How effectively she handles the job of holding her House Democrats together while working with the Republicans and with the Senate and the President, will be determinative of what good gets done for the House, the Congress, the Democratic Party and the American people. I expect this woman of small physical stature is quite capable of doing the job and of raising the role of women in American politics to the highest echelons, where the next step for a woman is Executive office as VP or President.
posted by Tom Blake | 3:32 PM
6 Comments:
Well, I was very wrong, but glad of it. The Democratic Party seemingly has come to life, and I hope the recovery continues. Much hinges on Nancy Pelosi's leadership. Since I don't know much about her, I'll take Tom's endorsement as a good thing.
The Arizona outcomes were also a pleasant surprise. Janet Napolitano easily won her gubanatorial race against a third rate Republican candidate. The first and second rate potential candidates ran for cover months ago when they realized she is unstoppable. The question is: will she make a presidential bid in 2008?
Democrat Terry Goddard also easily won a second term as Attorney General. He will certainly run for governor next time around.
Before the election 2 of our 8 representatives were Democrats (both from Hispanic areas of the state). After last night's election, 4 of the 8 are Democrats. That's a big deal, but will it hold up in 2008?
At the local level, Republicans increased their hold on the legislature, possibly presenting a veto proof legislature to Janet. I will remain a Republican because it remains the dominant party by far in Arizona, and I am hoping to influence it a tiny bit.
A big winner last night was John McCain who led John Kyl's successful campaign against multi-millionaire Jim Pederson who contributed gobs of his own money to his race. Kyl is honest, competent, and effective in the Senate. He is far to the right of McCain, so Kyl's indebtedness to McCain should help McCain's presidential aspirations.
John from Phoenix
Hell of a day for America.
I'm going to sit around and be happy for now, and try not to think too much about the fact that most of those Swing Seat Dems are actually Republicans in Democratic clothing.
In fact, I'm going to try to refrain from attacking most of the Dems at all. For the next two years that is going to be a real goal of mine.
I think it is a major fault of progressives that even in victory we are looking for ways to criticize our candidates. Left-leaning blogs are filled with happiness today, but there are still those little niggling critical comments about this or that.
Saw several comments about the Rep from my district, Jim McDermott. He is one of the most liberal guys in Congress, but to some people in Seattle he isn’t liberal enough. They think that with such a safe seat, there should be someone even more left leaning to take advantage of it. To me that is just silly.
All of the Dem bashing by fellow progressives is counter-productive. We need to ask ourselves, would the conservative right be having these same discussions the day after they won a massive election? I think not.
It’s time to savor victory and it’s time to start planning ways to make sure the resurgence of the Democratic party is something that last for a generation to come.
Chris in Bangkok
As for Mr McCain ... rather than his bid for the presidency, I will be eagerly awaiting the man’s promised suicide.
It will spare us all the embarrassment of watching a once proud man continue grovel at the feet of the same conservative right-wing wackos that destroyed him.
Chris
Nancy is somewhat new to me also, but I am hopeful she can do the job well. It will be interesting to follow it. The right wingers will continue to demonize her as a San Francisco liberal. They like to use geographic related name calling. You don’t hear Dems calling Kyl an Arizona conservative (a la Goldwater).
Because Nancy is a woman, she will have an extra row to hoe; Americans seem to have an undercurrent of doubting a woman who would rise to power. Look at the women who rose to the top of HP. Condi Rice does not have to contend with the woman doubt syndrome, probably because she is also burdened with a possibly bigger prejudice, her skin color. When unknown Hastert rose to the speakership (after the first few candidates withdrew in scandal - a Republican strong suit), there was no questioning his innate ability to handle the job; after all, he was a man. Seeing Nancy in the Speaker’s chair behind Bush at the State of the Union speech will help level the playing field.
As for Janet Napolitano, she needs to start emerging on the national scene if she wants to be a player in 08. Her speech at the 04 Convention was a ho hummer; maybe the large stage was intimidating. I look forward to her coming forward nationally.
The Clintons, like Carter in 76, were smart outsiders in liberal clothing, so the Republican power structure suspiciously resented them and the right wing nuts went ballistic from day one. All the shooting at the Clintons is nonsense, as the Whitewater waste showed, but the perpetual targeting has made many on the right think the Clintons must be a valid target, without offering any actual evidence of why. The Clintons are somewhat conservative Democratic pragmatists, not “San Francisco liberal” types. Hilary has a harder row than Bill, because she has to operate in his shadow (George II had a lesser shadow effect because George I lost his re-election bid), she does not have his charisma and she has the extra burden of being a woman.
The new Democrats differ somewhat from the more traditional ones on social issues like abortion and gay marriage, but they are all in agreement on the basic Democratic principles regarding economic matters, which will be the subject of the first legislation they pass. The social issues probably do not yet belong on the Federal agenda and should be left to the States and the courts as the national consensus continues to emerge. Interestingly, many of the hot button social ballot issues this time around yielded votes that could be considered liberal or at least libertarian (as in “keep the government out of this”).
You are correct Chris, about the need to refrain from internal attacks. Now that the Democrats have some power back, they need to push the agenda on which they can agree and keep their disagreements on other issues out of the public limelight, working them out in the privacy of their caucus.
I have trouble taking McCain seriously as a Presidential candidate. His heroic background is based on his plane going down and him surviving years of torture (at what psychological price?). His supposed independent streak, especially since he has tried to become a Presidential possibility, has turned more into a knuckle under streak to let right wing power people walk over him or make him suck up. His failure to speak up for his friend and fellow combat veteran Kerry, most recently over the bull about Kerry misinterpreted comments on the intelligence level of our troops, raises serious questions about his character.
Tom is right about Janet about not having time to run for president in 2008. I'm just such a fan of her that I gushed a little too much. To be as effective as she has been in a state with a weak governorship and a stong legislature that is controlled by very right wing religious types is very impressive. I see her more likely picking the winner early in the Democratic primary and supporting him or her. And then, if the Democrat wins, getting a high position in the government.
I agree with Tom's characterization of the Clintons as not liberal, but more centrist. But I don't think many voters are that thoughtful when Hillary's name comes up. I think their gut feel is that she is a radical and an intimidating feminist.
I think Tom's and Chris' vow to stop internal attacks does not go far enough. I am so sick of all the attack ads of the campaign we just endured that I don't want to see or hear any more political attacks inside or outside of either party. Their attacks on McCain are of the same stripe as Republicans who have a visceral dislike of Hillary and of the Viet Nam veterans who attacked Kerry.
John from Phoenix
Janet may indeed be more a cabinet candidate than a Presidential one. Any Democratic woman officeholder who cannot be intimidated might be considered a radical feminist by right wing Republicans. The senior Senator from Washington State, Patty Murray is outspoken and quite liberal, but is rarely referred to as a radical feminist. I don’t think the lack of such labeling for Murray is just because she looks like a frumpy middle aged mom; I think she is not so targeted because she has no grander pretensions than the Senate. Hilary showed her higher ambitions from her first days as First Lady, which is why she was co-targeted in the attacks on her husband.
The American public seems to prefer First Ladies like Laura Bush, fawningly attentive to their man and with a Stepford chip inserted.
Attack ads are like spam, disgusting but effective. They energize the base of the attacker, distract and discourage the supporters of the victim and mislead and confuse the uncommited. But many positive ads are like pablum. AARP ran an interesting ad with a very personable candidate doing charmingly endearing non-political activities, but with no mention of any substantive political matters, followed by the admonition from AARP that votes should be based not on the personality of a candidate, but rather on candidate positions on issues of relevance. The best legitimate ads would clearly tell us what positions the candidate has taken in the past and what the candidate intends to do if elected, not in generic platitudes, but in specifics.
Disparagement of a competing product is not that commonly used in commercial advertising, but has certainly taken hold in politics. Reagan took what looked like a commercial approach in 1980, with his “somewhere in the heartland” idyllic fantasies of what a Reagan Presidency would feel like. The ads were effective, not because they were legitimate or informative, but because they were charming and endearing, while actually being subtle attack ads. The swift boat attack ads on Kerry were attempted character assassinations based on subjectively distorted and selectively misleading and incomplete pretenses to evidence, which would be considered in a court of law either inadmissible or else admitted only with a warning that they should be given very little credence if any at all.
Post a Comment
<< Home