November 9, 2006

"It is virtually 100 percent that Webb is going to win the race."

So says Chuck Schumer, but the NYT is treating the question of control of the Senate as unresolved:
Democratic Party officials and some news organizations, including MSNBC and The A.P., declared Mr. Webb the winner of the election with a margin of less than one-half of 1 percent out of more than 2.3 million ballots cast. A candidate can request a recount in Virginia if the vote difference is less than one percentage point.

State officials were conducting a rapid canvass of the vote as part of a formal certification of the result. They could be done by Thursday afternoon, officials said.

Members of the Allen camp said earlier in the day that they expected the review would cut into Mr. Webb’s lead, but stopped short of predicting that it would reverse the outcome.

Mr. Allen will speak as soon as the canvass is done, said a senior Allen adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The adviser made it clear that if the margin did not narrow significantly, Mr. Allen would not challenge the result.

“He has no intention of dragging this out,” the adviser said.
I was dreading recounts and charges of fraud and voting machine failures, so it's good that this is winding to a close quickly, even though it must be hard for people to absorb this much change.

What do I think about the Democrats taking over both houses of Congress? I don't have much feeling one way or the other. I mistrust both parties. I'm hopeful that the kinds of candidates the Democrats relied on to win -- people like Webb -- will transform the party and make it into something I can support.

61 comments:

The Drill SGT said...

Ann said...
I'm hopeful that the kinds of candidates the Democrats relied on to win -- people like Webb -- will transform the party and make it into something I can support.


I'm of two minds on this topic. On one hand, I think it's good for the GOP to be spanked. It will teach them a lesson and hopefully their game will improve.

On the other hand, while in 1994, the GOP took over with a clear agenda (Contract with America), I don't see any such positive message from the Dem's. they seem to have run and won on an anti-platform. I'm concerned that the country is going to be negatively impacted by the new Congress.

Yes, there were a lot of DINO's that won, but they empower a much more leftist leadership in both houses. The Harman Hastings thing sickens me personally, but I think that the GOP will feel the loss of the Senate and it's impact on Federal Judges more.

Simon said...

*The loss of the House is a blessing in disguise for Republicans, insofar as it is severe punishment for six years of heresy, and one which should animate them to return to core principles. I don't think we'll make the same mistakes Democrats did 1994-2006.

*I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the legislative gridlock that usually ensues in these situations will not appear, insofar as Bush is a big government conservative now faced with a cheerfully big government Congress. The only significant friction I'd expect is over foreign policy and when the Democrats try to raise taxes, but even there, I think Bush has an aversion to using the veto. He has already indicated that he'll support a minimum wage increase.

*The biggest and most obvious thing to expect is an amnesty to go through within the first year, since Democrats, Senate Republicans and the President all agree on that issue.

*The most interesting thing is going to be watching how effectively Pelosi can keep together a caucus whose muscle comes from a group of Democrats far less liberal than its leaders.

*And of course, the loss of the Senate is a national catastrophe that has rendered it almost impossible to confirm anyone to the Supreme Court. Don't expect another Sam Alito or John Roberts - any nominee who doesn't swear a blood oath to Roe and the use of legislative history will be lucky to be nominated, let alone confirmed. I'm somewhere between horror and despair on this point.

Goesh said...

I think it is a good idea so they can attempt to impeach Bush and immeidately pull out of Iraq. If Iran is allowed to annex southern Iraq and bolster their economy with Iraqi oil, they won't have a desire to develop nuclear weapons and defend the manifesting Caliphate with WMD. If Iran can establish military bases on the border with Jordan and cut a deal with fundamentalists there, they certainly can destablize the young King there, who is not a fighting man. Hey! It's the only way to really get at Israel, who we are spending too much money already. The money wasted on Israel can be better put to use by providing better housing and medical care for refugees from Mexico who are fleeing poverty there. Also, we need to give John Murtha some real say in how and where our troops are deployed, after all, he was in Viet Nam 40 years ago.

David said...

Time for the Democrats to stand up and show us what they can do! No more BDS to fall back on or dark Rovian conspiracies to blame.

I suspect they will be tempted to squander their victory by pursuing investigations into the conduct of war and earmarks.

We all wait to see the democratic plan!

vegetius said...

Take heart ,Sarge.
Webb is the real deal. A fighter.
A real hero. The contra-Kerry.
I believe he has a son in the Marines.
Definely not a multi-culti kumbayah PC
Democrat.
On the other hand, the thought of Hastings as Chair of Intel makes me gag.He's a real bag of pus.

Bissage said...

Ann said: "I mistrust both parties.

So does every other sensible person.

McCain/Lieberman 2008!

David said...

Goesh;

I appreciate your sarcasm and believe it is dead on. Israel and Jordan are worried, as well they should be. The world awaits to see if the the direction taken by the U.S. is to hunker down in a defensive bunker or negotiate and appease.

The longer we take to signal our intent the more the enemy will be emboldened.

Shanna said...

*I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the legislative gridlock that usually ensues in these situations will not appear, insofar as Bush is a big government conservative now faced with a cheerfully big government Congress.
Simon, this is my biggest worry about the new congress, aside from foreign policy.

Joe Baby said...

Re: S. Ct. appointees, perhaps Bush saved a few minorities + women for such a scenario.

Mark said...

I hope the Democratic partisans out there are paying attention to the Republican response to this defeat and absorbing the lesson in how to graciously accept a loss.

Have you seen any Republicans anywhere in the country accusing Democrats of stealing the election through fraud? I have not heard of a single instance of that kind of poor sportsmanship on the part of the Republicans. But there was a cacophany of Democratic accusations and hysteria since the "selected, not elected" stuff in 2000. It undermined the public's confidence in our nation and embarrassed us on the international stage. We even had Democratic supporters calling for international observers to come and watch our elections to ensure the Republicans didn't cheat. But here the Republicans have lost, in many cases in very, very close races, and there hasn't been any of that kind of behavior from them. That is how real patriots and gentlemen or ladies conduct themselves: by giving their opponents the benefit of the doubt that they are honorable and deserve a gracious acknowledgement of defeat. By not undermining the faith in our system's fairness and legitimacy that is the foundation of its viability.

Al Maviva said...

Hah. You think Hastings is bad? Wait until you see Bennie Thompson running the Homeland Security Committee. Hastings is just corrupt. Thompson, I'm afraid is worse: he's... how can I put it euphemistically... not real bright. His office is known for some of the lowest quality staff work on the Hill. But don't worry, it's not like Homeland Security comprises half of our strategy to defeat Islamacist terrorism or anything...

Fritz said...

Democracy is like a market, no one is in control. If Pelosi wants to call the stock market rally, a Dem rally, so be it. If the MSM narrative of the "but" economy to the strong economy, great. The sour economic mood can quickly become self fulfilling. Let them take credit for the economy, I'm an American and want us to grow. With a strong economy and high stock prices, do you think the Democrats will be stupid enough to raise taxes on dividends and income taxes? It ain't going to happen.

Pogo said...

The gridlock will only be over foreign policy and judges.

Domestic spending will continue with renewed vigor, like Imelda Marcos finding Manolo Blahniks at Neiman Marcus.

Fritz said...

Webb race. Like a questionable call in the NFL, the offense quickly lines up to hike the ball before the other team can challenge it. I love the cafeteria principle Party! Only 2 days ago, EVERY VOTE MUST COUNT! There is nothing wrong with a canvass being completed for accuracy, Webb's jumping out to hike the ball is pure partisan smear.

Simon said...

Another prediction: for the last six years, conservatives have been praying and blogging for SCOTUS retirements, and liberals have been praying for health and longevity among Stevens and Ginsburg in particular. Those roles will now reverse: conservatives terrified of who a newly-liberated Bush can now get away with nominating would rather keep retirements until we take back the Senate in '08 (and preferably elect a GOP President who isn't a total goshdarned tool), and liberals may well see this as their best chance to preserve their majority for another three decades.

Now we're in the minority, I think Republicans are obligated to continue the Democrats' tradition by coming up with a conspiracy theory to assign blame for why we lost. Here's my effort: Bush and Rove believe that overruling Roe would be an electoral catatrophe for the GOP (and, unlike Jeff Rosen, Bush and Rove actually belive it), and they also believe that the next nominee has to be hispanic, because they think it'll give them a boost with hispanics. But most of the plausible hispanic candidates - Garza, Estrada, Cantero, et al - are well-known as anti-Roe, so they're out, and the hispanic candidates who aren't "out" as anti-Roe, like Gonzales or Callahan, simply aren't going to fly with the base. But the base's opinion only matters if Republicans control the Senate. So what do they do? Seeing that Missouri, Virginia and Montana are going to be very close, they design a campaign that is so clever that it will look shockingly inept; they rope in Rush Limbaugh to alienate moderates on the stem cell issue (McCaskill's margin of victory: 41, 537. Membership, Missouri chapter of the Michael J. Fox fan club: 41,540. True fact), and delay the potentially Senate-saving revalation of Rumsfeld's resignation until after the election. The race duly thrown, Bush is free to nominate Callahan and Gonzales.

Suit up, Republicans -- tinfoil hats at the ready!

Simon said...

JoeBaby,
The Democrats only buy into identity politics when it favors them. Clarence Thomas was a "minority" candidate, and it didn't save him from outright savagery. Do you really think that if Bush nominated Diane Sykes or Karen Williams, the Democrats would look the other way because of their gender? Does anyone really think that, if Bush nominated Raoul Cantero or Emilio Garza, that Democrats would hesitate to block them out of fear of blocking the first hispanic nominee? The Democrats are deeply misguided, but they aren't stupid; they understand full well that with the next retirement, the game is probably up.

Identity politics is contemptible enough on its face, but it becomes even more so in its selective deployment.

Fritz said...

Janice Rogers Brown

LoafingOaf said...

James Webb doesn't seem like the kind of Democrat who would win me over for the fact that he's an economic nationalist supporting protectionist policies and opposed to liberal free markets. T

The Democrats claim to be "reality-based." Bill Clinton was reality-based on these trade issues (one of the things I liked most about him), and was in line with the consensus of most economists.

James Webb - like Sharrod Brown who won a senate seat from my state this week - has more in common with Patrick Buchanan's economic views, which in my judgment are bad for both the majority of Americans and the impoverished people in the developing world.

What I hope for the Republicans is that they move towards their libertarian wing, as InstaPundit has been encouraging. With this wave of Buchananite economic illiberals and their anti-globalization rhetoric sweeping into power via the Democratic Party, we need more people standing up for reality-based trade policy.

Goesh said...

Wow! Thanks, Dave! I'm going to put my faith in Hastings and Murtha, after all, people who are so stupid as to resort to the use of box cutters to kill 3,000 of us couldn't possibly get their hands on any WMD. Once Bush is gone, America won't be hated anymore.

LoafingOaf said...

Now we're in the minority, I think Republicans are obligated to continue the Democrats' tradition by coming up with a conspiracy theory to assign blame for why we lost.

Flipping around the radio dial in my car last night I came across the Savage Nation program. Savage was screaming that Bush wanted the Dems to win because he wants amnesty for illegal aliens. He was playing clips from Bush's press conference that "proved" it.

So, yes, some are busy with conspiracy theories.

I would like some explanation from the tinfoil hat wearers on the left, though. They've been claiming Bushco is able to steal elections, so why didn't Bushco use their awesome powers to steal this one too?

Anonymous said...

loafingoaf said: James Webb - like Sharrod Brown who won a senate seat from my state this week - has more in common with Patrick Buchanan's economic views, which in my judgment are bad for both the majority of Americans and the impoverished people in the developing world.

Precisely. James Webb is a Paleo-con running as a Democrat, which might just prove downright amusing when some of the moveon.org people discover what it is they have voted into office.

LoafingOaf said...

BTW, the hard left bloggers I've browsed are currently demonizing Rahm Emanuel to try and stop him and his hand-picked candidates (they're already calling them "Democrats" with quotation marks) from getting credit for the Democrats' victory. Will the Nutroots be leading more purges?

Mortimer Brezny said...

The only significant friction I'd expect is over foreign policy and when the Democrats try to raise taxes, but even there, I think Bush has an aversion to using the veto. He has already indicated that he'll support a minimum wage increase.

Bush says he supports a minimum wage increase because it is a get-out-the-vote driver for Democrats and he's taking it off the table in 2008. He can also use that concession to get movement on other stuff he wants, like Mexican amnesty. But after he makes the deals he's set to make on the domestic front, he's going to veto nonsense and start using executive orders to rule from the White House. That's when the investigations and hearings and subpoenas start.

wv: pslosl

Mortimer Brezny said...

McCaskill's margin of victory: 41, 537. Membership, Missouri chapter of the Michael J. Fox fan club: 41,540.

Wow.

Barry said...

Ann said: "I mistrust both parties."

Yay! Maybe you should look elsewhere for candidates you can believe in.

"I'm hopeful that the kinds of candidates the Democrats relied on to win -- people like Webb -- will transform the party and make it into something I can support."

Well, I guess you're more hopeful than I... and I used to consider myself an optimist.

It seems to me that while the Democrats held the majority, all we heard about was how corrupt they were and how Republicans could come in and bring integrity back. Now we've seen the same thing happen it the parties in opposite roles. The thing is, they are all corrupt. The culture of political office as a vocation and the level of finances required to run a campaign ensure that our politicians will continue to be bought and sold. Even the candidates that want to be clean have to do some dirty dealing to gain and retain office.

The question is, when does the American public come to that realization, and what are we going to do about it other than exchanging one political whore for another?

JBlog said...

I think the Democrats are kind of like the old one about the dog that finally caught the school bus -- now that he's caught it, he has to figure out what to do with it.

Very easy to complain shrilly from the sidelines when you're in the minority. Once your in the majority, however, you're actually accountable for results.

And looking at the long list of things the Dems overpromised on -- raising minimum wage, reforming energy policy, fixing healthcare, finding a new direction for Iraq, etc. -- they'll have a lot to answer for if they don't make some progress fast.

The Dems won largely by exploiting the short attention span and impatience of the American public. But those traits could just as easily turn against them if they don't get some traction fast.

I figure they have about a year to make some stuff happen, maybe less.

Mack said...

Dems ran as the anti-Republicans because that's what they are, and it was the only strategy that made any sense. In any case, can anyone even tell me what the Republicans ran as? Wars and tax cuts? And big government? Great stuff...

Democrats are in a position now of trying to repair the damage of 6 years of hyper-partisan one-party rule. I have a feeling that will give them plenty to do. This whole stuff about lacking vision is, I think, a load of crap, as if anybody actually wants the country run by a new set of neo-con type ideologue/radicals.

I bet Pelosi will impress. I also think it's great that the country is finally ready to try another party since 9/11. That's a big step, and it'll give the Dems a chance to show they can do leadership just as well as the Republicans could, except without the Rove/Bush politics/incompetence.

tjl said...

"the hard left bloggers I've browsed are currently demonizing Rahm Emanuel to try and stop him and his hand-picked candidates (they're already calling them "Democrats" with quotation marks)."

Wouldn't internal strife among the Democrats lighten up the otherwise gloomy landscape? It would be such a consolation to see the Kossites recruiting new Ned Lamonts to take down the "Democrats" in 2008.

We should be so lucky. The new Dems will quickly see on what side their bread is buttered, with the possible exception of a few eccentrics like Webb.

"I bet Pelosi will impress." With the Alcee Hastings appointment she's already making a strong impression.

Shanna said...

Democrats are in a position now of trying to repair the damage of 6 years of hyper-partisan one-party rule.
I think it would be a bit absurd to blame the Republican's for "hyper-partisanship". Bush tried to work with the Democrats and passed some very unconservative things, like Education medling and a new Medicare drug bill. Why do you think the base is so mad at them!

Not to mention that from day one, when Gore refused to concede and we heard ad nauseum nonsense about Gore being the real president and republican "voter intimidation", the democrats have not exactly been sunshine and roses.

So you know. I hope for better now that they are not sore losers out of power, but I wouldn't blame the rancor of the last 6 years entirely on the Republicans.

Mortimer Brezny said...

That's a big step, and it'll give the Dems a chance to show they can do leadership just as well as the Republicans could, except without the Rove/Bush politics/incompetence.


Uh, do you live in reality? Pelosi is not a substance-laden policy wonk. She's a shrill partisan who reads from a teleprompter. She will have no control over the committee chairs, who will promptly start hearings and investigations that no one wants, and Bush will outmaneuver her on a number of domestic goals he couldn't get done with a Republican majority.

anselm said...

JBlog:
the long list of things the Dems overpromised on -- raising minimum wage, reforming energy policy, fixing healthcare, finding a new direction for Iraq, etc.

I fully expect that they will pass meaningful legislation on the first three within the first year, and when they the Republicans will look all the worse for what they did not accomplish.

The war will still be the president's domain, but Gates' appointment a clear signal of an imminent change in course, and this before all the votes were even counted.

The real test will come on immigration (some kind of reform seems very likely) and social security. Serious Medicare reform is probably too much to hope for.

MadisonMan said...

McCaskill's margin of victory: 41, 537. Membership, Missouri chapter of the Michael J. Fox fan club: 41,540.

I will also note that 41540 is the zip code of Lick Creek Kentucky, which is an anagram of Kick Creel, and Jim Talent is a well-known fisherman!

Mark said...

Yeah, Pelosi's already off to a great start with her line that "This is not a war to be won, but a situation to be solved." Her problem is going to be that in her heart of hearts she believes in the far-left stuff. She knows intellectually that she has to tone that stuff down because most Americans are repelled by it, but a person can't keep their tongue under control 24/7. Stuff slips out. One's true thoughts and feelings slip out...like when she hissed that Bush was "dangerous".

In that respect these next two years are going to be satisfying...to watch the stream of numbskull far-left bloopers that Pelosi is accidentally going to let slip, and to watch her constantly playing defense on the talk shows to try to defuse the resulting hoo-hah.

Joe Baby said...

That Pelosi statement was really stunning, coming so soon after victory. Kinda like Boehner seeming to blame the generals while Kerry's head was still on fire.

She'll be very lucky if that isn't bouncing around the echo chamber and biting her in the ass.

Mack said...

Shanna,

"So you know. I hope for better now that they are not sore losers out of power, but I wouldn't blame the rancor of the last 6 years entirely on the Republicans."

I can't blame anyone for everything. The idea of "sore losers," though, is a ridiculous marginalization, which is exactly what I will be glad to see now die.

As to Bush's alleged betrayals of conservative principles, I guess there are different ways to look at it. He may indeed not be as ideological as those around him, or as the conservative elites would like. I'm pretty sure the "hyper-partisan" label still applies, though, which is sad, because it probably wasn't even necessary.

kingronjo said...

Compare Allen not wanting to fight to the dying breath his election to Christine Jennings here in FL 13. She lost by a small number, like Allen, but has hired the Dem lawyer from FL 2000 to run to her aid to try to steal the election. Keep in mind also the election Supervisor of the county in question is a Dem also, Kathy Dent. I am sure she will be vilified like Teresa Laporte. Why can't these people take the recount and graciously concede if that is the recount decision also? Instead, they inisist on counting until miraculously, votes are found, they go ahead, and hey!! time to move on, get over it. Repugnant.

I also want to make a comment, a very general one, so dont bother showing me exceptions. I am sure there are some, probably not very recent tho.

When a Repub gets caught he resigns, takes his medicine and thats that (Duke, Foley, Crane, etc). Compare that to BOTH Kennedy's, Jefferson, Clinton, etc. A complete lack of personal responsibility permeates the left wing mentality.

Shanna said...

Why can't these people take the recount and graciously concede if that is the recount decision also?

Exactly. This is what I'm talking about with the "sore loser" business. Once you bring out the lawyers, you've lost an opportunity to be a good loser. I think the way people lose tells you a lot about them. It's like the guy who won't shake hands and say good game after a ball game. Sore. Loser.

Obviously not everyone, but a whole lot of Democrats the last 6 years just couldn't accept that they lost and were no where near able to put aside their own partisanship and act for the good of the country.

Gahrie said...

This brings up the stark contrast between the way Harold Ford Jr. handled defeat, and the way almost every other Democrat the last 6 years has. His concession speech was gracious, and everything Kerry and Gore's should have been.

MadisonMan said...

Compare Allen not wanting to fight to the dying breath his election to Christine Jennings here in FL 13. She lost by a small number, like Allen

Less than 400, I believe. Not the multi-thousand vote loss of Allen. And how is Christine Jennings different from Republican Sue Kelly?

Too Many Jims said...

Let me go out on a limb and guess that if the canvass in VA reveals that regions favoring Allen had an undervote of 353,250, he will not concede until he gets an explanation as to why that happened.

Kingronjo I know you don't want exceptions, but you should at least get your facts straight -- Crane did not resign. But you are right, it was great that Duke Cunningham resigned for taking bribes within a few weeks of pleading guilty , much better than Ney sticking around for months collecting checks after he had plead guilty. (I suppose we should point out that Jefferson hasn't plead guilty yet so he has no reason to resign by this reasoning.)

Simon said...

MadisonMan said...
"McCaskill's margin of victory: 41, 537. Membership, Missouri chapter of the Michael J. Fox fan club: 41,540. I will also note that 41540 is the zip code of Lick Creek Kentucky, which is an anagram of Kick Creel, and Jim Talent is a well-known fisherman!"

There you go, now we're playing. ;)

reader_iam said...

... fixing healthcare ...

I fully expect that they will pass meaningful legislation on the first three within the first year


Fix healthcare within the first year? Or even do something to make meaningful progress in that area?

Apart the fact that you don't define your terms or specificy what "health care" includes, this assumes that there IS an easy fix for health care, which area is one heck of tangled hairball if ever there was one.

But--Wow!--I do admire your optimism.

Henry said...

And of course, the loss of the Senate is a national catastrophe that has rendered it almost impossible to confirm anyone to the Supreme Court. Don't expect another Sam Alito or John Roberts - any nominee who doesn't swear a blood oath to Roe and the use of legislative history will be lucky to be nominated, let alone confirmed. I'm somewhere between horror and despair on this point.

Buck up, Simon. I think you forget that court nominations come down to personality and politicking as well as litmus tests.

It probably doesn't make you feel better, but even if the Republicans had a slim majority, they would have no chance to prevent a solid nominee from being filibustered. The only way to prevent that would have been for the Republicans to gain seats, which was never a possibility.

I don't expect Stevens and Ginsburg to jump at the chance for GWB to name their replacements. If they do, and the Senate refuses to nominate anyone who doesn't swear by Roe v. Wade, then we'll have to live with seven justices for a year or two. There is no way under the sun that Bush nominates a pro-Roe justice.

Dave said...

Ann: The Economist has a number of excellent articles on the elections, which articles appear to be free, available here.

Your readers may be interested in their perspective.

Mortimer Brezny said...

Frankly, after seeing those pictures of Ann at the CNN party, I'm interested in moving to Wisconsin.

wv: mulwujfu

Mulwujfu...oh yeah. You know it, baby.

Mack said...

Allen doesn't want a protracted legal battle because he still wants to run for President, and he doesn't want a protracted focus on any aspect of his loss in this race.

Shanna,

Trust me when I say that Democrats disagree with you on what is good for the country. They don't think Bush has been good for the country, and they don't think sucking up to him will or would have helped.

It's also possible that they don't look at an election as a fun game to be won or lost, but as an exercise in democracy. If the Supreme Court had chosen Al Gore, by prohibiting Florida from recounting its votes, would you simply have said, "Fair's fair"? Would you have said, "Ok, then, let's everybody rally around Al Gore! What shall we do now, Mr. President?" It's a silly argument at this point, I'll admit, but I just don't believe you would have.

PatCA said...

"I'm hopeful that the kinds of candidates the Democrats relied on to win -- people like Webb -- will transform the party and make it into something I can support."

I hope so too but doubt it. A junior member raises his hand when told to, introduces bills he abhors, and keeps his contarian thoughts to himself--or he loses the funding and support of his party. It's a most dispiriting and demeaning position, according to a friend who was one himself. Harman was the first maverick to feel the pressure but won't be the last.

Elizabeth said...

It's a big problem for the election in Louisiana that Jefferson hasn't been charged with anything (he can't plead guilty if he hasn't been charged), despite the investigation going public months before Hurricane Katrina. He's now in a runoff for his position, and after 16 years holding a seat, if he can't swing more than 30 percent in the primary, let's hope that means he's in trouble. But had the feds moved a bit more quickly, instead of a runoff between him and the challenger who came closest, voters would have the pleasure of choosing between several attractive candidates with no Jefferson distraction.

Shanna said...

Shanna,

Trust me when I say that Democrats disagree with you on what is good for the country. They don't think Bush has been good for the country, and they don't think sucking up to him will or would have helped.


Yeah. I knew that. I"m not sure what I said that had anything to do with "sucking up" to Bush. Are you perhaps refering to my desire for people not to be sore losers?

Behaving with class and grace is not an indication that you have sold out or that you agree with your opponents. It is an indication that you are an adult.

AJ Lynch said...

Madison Man said:
"I will also note that 41540 is the zip code of Lick Creek Kentucky, which is an anagram of Kick Creel, and Jim Talent is a well-known fisherman!"

Speaking of odd happenstance, the Pennsylvania lottery number on Tuesday evening before the polls closed was "666". How did it know?

{cue to Twilight Zone theme]

The Drill SGT said...

Drudge had a Pelosi piece up that was interesting. 3 snips:

Rep. Nancy Pelosi plans to sideline colleagues who are hawkish on national security in the Democratic leadership in the House.

Democratic Party sources said as House Speaker, Ms. Pelosi plans to block moves that would place hawks into important chairmanships. The sources said a key casualty would be Rep. Jane Harman, a six-term member of Congress who has cooperated with Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee.

"Nancy Pelosi wants total party discipline," a source in the Democratic Party leadership said. "If you played ball with the Republicans during this session, then you're not going to be given an important chair in the next session."

Too Many Jims said...

"Speaking of odd happenstance, the Pennsylvania lottery number on Tuesday evening before the polls closed was "666". How did it know?"

Maybe it was fixed, check the ping pong balls for paint.

cokaygne said...

Pretty obvious that Rove and Bush threw this election. For example, how come they didn't produce OBL just before the election? Why did they throw the election? They did it so that the nutroots would shut up about fraud at the ballot box. A midterm election is small potatoes and historically a loser for a president in his sixth year anyway. Now, by taking the voting fraud issue off the table, Rove and his minions can pull out all the stops for the big one in '08. Either that, or they'll engineer the Democratic nomination for Kerry again. How do I know this? Rove talks to me in my sleep. I hear his voice all the time.

MadisonMan said...

Given that it's never too early to start talking about '08, I'll note that Tom Vilsack, Democratic Governor of Iowa started his run for the Presidency today. I have to say I'm prejudicially inclined to favor him because he's a midwesterner. It's high time Midwestern Commonsense got elected back into the White House. Sure, Vilsack's Pennsylvanian by birth, but he's a midwesterner now.

Drill, Drudge may be right. Or, given his history, he may be putting up RNC talking points in the form of a story from a Conservative magazine.

dklittl said...

cokaygne,

Oh stop with the whining, its unbecoming. Democrats won fair and square. Congratulate us and then go into the corner.

JBlog said...

"I bet Pelosi will impress."

I bet she'll turn back into a shrieking harpy, perhaps before the week is out.

But I hope I'm wrong.

Simon said...

Henry,
Oh, I think that there are enough Democrats like Nelson, Landrieu and Lieberman who would vote against the nominee, but who would also vote against a filibuster (as they did with Alito), that all else being equal, even a 52-48 majority (accounting for possible Snowe/Collins/Specter defections) could confirm a really strong candidate such as Sykes, Williams, McConnell, Young, or even Cantero. JRB? Maybe, but I'm skeptical that she's a strong candidate for SCOTUS.

As regards Bush and Roe, I think you have to remember two things. First, George W. Bush has little or no understanding of (or interest in) legal process. Like many in the base, he's really only interested in the results, and in that regard, even if Bush really were anti-Roe, he is closer to the position of Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin than he is to mine: they love Roe because they're pro choice, and if Bush hates Roe, he hates it purely because he's pro life. And I continue to dissent from the argument that one's opinion on abortion should govern one's opinion on Roe.

As we saw with the Miers nomination, that basic failure to grapple with law in any terms except as it supports his normative preferences has consequences for who he nominates. I don't doubt that Harriet Miers is pro-life, and I don't doubt that she rejects Roe's result - does she reject the view of the Constitution that underpins Roe and cases like it? I don't want us to abandon Griswold only to go back to Lochner.

And second, I really think that even if Bush isn't aware of Jeff Rosen's apocalyptic post-Roe vision for the GOP, Rove certainly is, and Bush is surely aware - as he demonstrated with his showboating over Schiavo (i.e. flying back to Washington when he could just as easily have signed it where he was) - that Roe is a politically useful tool for the Republican party to motivate its base.

Shanna said...

Given that it's never too early to start talking about '08, I'll note that Tom Vilsack, Democratic Governor of Iowa started his run for the Presidency today. I have to say I'm prejudicially inclined to favor him because he's a midwesterner. It's high time Midwestern Commonsense got elected back into the White House.
It’s about time the Democrats nominate someone sensible for President. Governor’s are always a good bet, particularly from the south or midwest. No more senators. That goes for Republicans too.
Congratulate us and then go into the corner.
Congratulations but nobody will be getting in any corner. What we have now is divided government. Both sides have a say.

I for one, would like to see a fair bit of voting across party lines, on both sides of the fence when appropriate. Also, go gridlock!

Garage Mahal said...

The sources said a key casualty would be Rep. Jane Harman, a six-term member of Congress who has cooperated with Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee.


It's remarkable they can't find someone other than Hastings, but Harman has her own warts . And the bad kind of warts in my opinion. But Hastings? WTF

Drudge's Nancy hysteria is funny though. Democrats were complicit with whatever Bush wanted, especially the crusty self-serving DLC types, who will vote for anything if it serves their purposes.

ModNewt said...

Shanna said:
I think it would be a bit absurd to blame the Republican's for "hyper-partisanship". Bush tried to work with the Democrats and passed some very unconservative things, like Education medling and a new Medicare drug bill. Why do you think the base is so mad at them!

I see so the Bush and Republicans aren't responsible for saying things such as:

“it sounds like they [democrats] think the best way to protect the American people is — wait until we’re attacked again.”

"The Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses."

BTW, what part of the Republican party do you consider the "base?" I perceive the base as religious righties... many of those folks don't mind big government as long as the Pol also mention how much he/she hates gays and abortion, loves the flag, and supports our military (i.e. more guns, never mention funding the VA). The base can hardly be considered the the fiscally conservative Repubs anymore. Those folks (like my father) are abandoning the party in droves from my anecdotal observations; especially out west. Take a look at my state, Colorado. In January of 2004 we had both senators, both state houses and the governorship in Republican hands. Now the Senators are split, and both state houses and the Governorship are in Democratic hands.

This is not merely a 2 year problem for the Republicans. If we are to believe W, the Iraq war will still be going on in 2008. Moreover, people are reluctant to boot out a representative after only 2 years. They'll give most of them another go.

I suspect the Democrats will be smart by removing the hyper-partisan rules in the House such as the one restricting the minority party from offering amendments to bills, and hopefully reconstitute a meaningful Ethics committee.

Moreover I suspect they'll try to pass stuff the average Joe will have a hard time opposing: smart anti-terrorism legislation (Open Ports anyone?) that for 5+ years has been woefully lacking; removing the drug price negotiation rule; removing tax breaks for oil companies. The list could go on for pages.

This kind of legislation will confirm to voters that they made the right decision. Sure, eventually they'll run out of these kinds of things and have to attack more divisive issues such as environmental regulation, tax increases, etc. For the time being there are lots of areas to create broad support. That should hold them over at least through 2008.

blogNRound said...

I agee with transormation, on the other hand.... the blog entries overflow with presumptions and assumptions.

like

The GOP doesn't equal conservative!
the MSM, DC election committees, beltway bureaucrats and even members of both parties accept this truism without inspection.

Look at Bush Administration's results. massive spending increases.
marginal tax cuts for 135 million tax payers. A Political strategy based on division and exclusion. No center only "with us or against us" then when the lose, everything caves in.

philosophically, the GOP has lost it's way. contract for america was never implemented. the party destoyed itself from within.

This identity doens't exist.

this misconception is 1 reason the GOP got it's ass kicked this November. Bush the decider, listened, dictated but didn't change or adapt. now Rove's strategy is bankrupt.

I'm a long standing republican, but i abhore the current GOP. Hassert, Rove, Bush, Delay, scandals. they have no principles, they can stand by and deserve to get routed until they realize who they work for.