Politics: November 2006 Archives

Okay, two years ago, I had advice mostly for the Democrats. This time, my advice is going to be mostly for the Republicans.



The Republicans played way too hard to the wrong part of their base for the last two years, and ignored the more important part. The christian groups rewarded them for their effort, but as is plain to see now, the christian groups aren't enough. Furthermore, the christian groups, the republicans are pretty much going to get no matter what. The reasons that they vote are pretty much anathema to the Democrats. At most they might stay home. But by playing so hard to them, they got maybe a couple percent higher turnout and participation - at the cost of losing ten percent or more of some groups that are much larger in the aggregate directly to the democrats. Small government conservatives and small l libertarians have voted very strongly Republican in the last several elections. After the prescription drug benefit on top of the very necessary war related and homeland security expenses mandated by reality after 9/11, small government conservatives were looking for Democrats to support just on the theory that a divided government slows the growth in the federal budget. I happen to think they're wrong, but they had significant reasons to believe so. Furthermore, the prescription drug benefit didn't buy you much with the older voters who are concerned about social security. It is necessary to reform social security, and now, in order to save it for the long term, but those voters who are worried about cuts to present day benefits aren't going to be swayed by drug benefits, and those drug benefits were a major chink in your armor with small government voters.



I fully realize that political parties are creatures of privilege, nonetheless you have a situation where necessary government programs of surveillance for the War on Terror created significant anxiety among the libertarian minded voters. Now the hardcore Libertarians wouldn't vote for you anyway, but they vote Libertarian, not Democrat, essentially taking them out of the political equation. However, those who trend libertarian and vote based upon economic issues have tended in the past to vote very heavily Republican. You did a poor job explaining the reasons for the surveillance and the safeguards on it. Yes, I realize that the national media, being Democratic partisans, did their best to confuse the issue, but the means exists to get your message out. Just a simple factually complete email to a dozen of the largest bloggers on the right and center would have done more than all the press conferences and hostile questioning you went through with a hostile media. Furthermore, you could and should have made it a plain policy of enforcement that nobody was immune to these programs. If calls to the White House are subject to the same criteria for monitoring as calls to Achmed the immigrant cab driver, and everyone in between, that says they you consider it important enough that nobody is immune, which goes a long way towards showing how essential these programs are. You didn't do this, thereby exacerbating the perception that caused libertarians to trend a bit less economic libertarian and a bit more civil liberties libertarian, a reaction that always has bad consequences for Republicans. Piled on top of the Terri Schiavo controversy, this caused libertarians to think more civil liberties and less economic.



Finally, the American public has roughly the patience of mayflies. That the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan has been going on so long, and is actually being conducted quite well considering the underlying political realities, cuts no slack with the American people after three and a half years. You've got to explain it to them, constantly. You didn't do that, as a result of which we may have lost the war Tuesday night. If the Democrats consider it a mandate to leave Iraq, we have lost the war, plain and simple, and I strongly doubt we will have another Ronald Reagan to turn it around for us. It's going to take something else as big as 9/11 to get the attention and the support of the American public again, and by that time, it will probably be too late.



Now, just as two years ago I had some advice for the winning Republicans, which included the advice that the Republicans would have a lot more at stake this year than the Democrats, here's some advice for the Democrats. If you look at the Democrats who won, they ran as centrists, not leftists. Calls for the impeachment of President Bush or another go-around of something like Iran Contra will not endear you to the American public. Most of your leaders are leftists, but it's the centrists who won on Election night, and if they don't want to be swept out in their next election, they are going to have to act like centrists, talk like centrists, and most importantly, vote like centrists. The national media, which the Democrats control, pulled out all of the stops in spinning things your direction this cycle. Furthermore, the Republicans were completely inept politically, and it was the sixth year of a Presidency, and the majority who don't understand the War on Terror wanted to register a protest vote, and you benefited from all of that. The Republicans had a lot less going for them in 1994, and in 2004. If this is as good as you can do with everything like that in your favor, you are in no less trouble than you were two years ago. More actually, because now you're going to be held responsible for solutions, instead of merely criticizing the opposition, if not in the media, then at least by the citizens, who are more and more learning to bypass inappropriate filters on the news. Try to run the country hard left, like most of your leaders have been talking until very recently, and you'll be the minority party again in 2008. Stay in the center, and you'll do very well.



Now actually I'm very encouraged by what I see from the actual politicians of both parties in the two days since the election. But the test is not in how they talk prior to taking office; the test is in how they act and vote once they have taken office.



Worthy Articles from here and there

Don Surber on what won and what didn't.

Decision '08 on the death of the conspiracy theories

Coyote Blog: Parties are partisan, so get over it.

Blackfive on Pelosi's quote that Iraq is not a war

Q and O Dems actually have to do something now.

Michael Barone on what Bush is likely to do.

Eject! Eject! Eject! on the way to react to Republican defeat.

Scrappleface on something that would guarantee a Republican sweep in 2008.

Michelle Malkin notes that there are already indications it may happen.

Don Surber New for 2007: Most corrupt Congress ever!

(This will be updated as further thoughts strike)



1) Very Surreal moment: Fox News just called Maryland for Cardin - despite the fact that Steele is leading the actual count.



2) They just did the same thing to Ehrlich, the Maryland governor, who is ahead in the count. Do they have the feeds to the public reversed?



3) Republicans find absentee ballots after all the ballots supposedly counted in Ohio. Not much detail. (Later clarification on my part) These were found after all absentee ballots were supposedly secure.



4) Harry Reid bloviating about investigating Halliburton, how he wants to be a uniter. Bull. His actions of badmouthing the opposition are pure divider.



5) They're griping about Steele refusing to concede in Maryland. He's ahead in the count right now. I wouldn't concede either.



6) Conrad Burns in Montana is badly behind in the initial report.



7) Allen and Webb very tight race. Lass 11000 votes out of 2 million plus margin for Allen right now. 3% remaining, and still too close to call.



8) Looks like Democrats have successfully lawyered DeLay's seat. That was low, even for the party of Richard "Dead Man Voting" Daley.



9) Official projection of Democratic House Control.



10) Talking about Dems in Control. Conyers running amok, playing political games along the same lines they've been playing, then portray themselves as "bipartisan". If they do that, after two years you're not going to believe the spanking the Dems get in 2008.



11) Bloviating about immigration reform "which was stalled by the Republican House". Actually, it was stalled in the Senate.



12) With the Dems who are winning being mostly conservative, look for the Dems to overplay their hand, especially if Pelosi interprets this like as a mandate of some sort for liberals.



13) Webb now has a razor-thin lead in Virginia.



14) Lieberman, of course, blow NutRoots candidate Lamont out.



15) With Tennessee effectively out of reach, the Dems need to run the table on Missouri, Montana, and Virginia, but the way the counts are going now, it's looking like they'll do it. The Senate is the only real excitement left nationally.

Better Late than never: Bush challenges Democrats to offer plan for Iraq



Mind you, by leaving it this long, it has become apparent to anyone of any intelligence whatsoever that the Democrats have no plan on Iraq. "Cut and run" is not a plan, and neither is "Starve the troops for funding.". "Get the French (or Germans, or Andorrans) involved" is a plan on the

level of "Fly to the moon by flapping your arms." It's not going to happen. Mind you, with the intifada on their streets every night, I think France is wishing they had sent some troops right about now, but they've committed too strongly to change course now.



The Democrats could have changed this at any point in the past three and a half years by getting real about their planning on the situation in Iraq. So as angry as I am that President Bush has let them go this long on a free pass, they have only themselves to blame that the effort does any damage. Kind of like a knight going into battle with no breastplate and a target on their chest.



Wars are not neat, clean surgical affairs. Not victorious ones, anyway. I had severe reservations before the invasion, mostly having to do with the American will to deal with extended conflicts of this nature, but I thought (and still think) the consequences of not invading were worse than the consequences of invading. Yes, there have been many mistakes made. This is a by-product of the fog of war. The next war in which even the victorious side makes no major mistakes will be the very first.



Meanwhile, terrorists are openly rooting for Democrats. The Right Place refers us to Mideast terror leaders to U.S.: Vote Democrat

Everybody has an opinion about next Tuesday's midterm congressional election in the U.S. - including senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND who say they hope Americans sweep the Democrats into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq, a move, as they see it, that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.

You want to know how stupid withdrawal is? The Islamics don't believe the Democrats would actually do it

Saadi stated, "Unfortunately I think those who are speaking about a withdrawal will not do so when they are in power and these promises will remain electoral slogans. It is not enough to withdraw from Iraq. They must withdraw from Afghanistan and from every Arab and Muslim land they occupy or have bases."

What would American withdrawal mean?

Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would "mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America)."

Unfortunately, I think I have to agree with him there. Why should anyone ally with us if we make a habit of leaving our allies high and dry? The US is the glue that holds the civilized world together. Without us, the world will fall piecemeal.



Q and O has more worthwhile information.



May the universe help us when the terrorists get to be as smart as "dumb" President Bush, who refused to endorse Joe Lieberman because it wouldn't help the Sentor with the people who were voting for the opposition.



Victor Davis Hanson has some perspective.



I have a theory about pre-election polls: They skew away from the party in power, as those who are disgruntled are more likely to want their voice heard. I've hung up on more than one of these idiots in the past week or so, and dozens of their even stupider kin, campaign telemarketers (I just don't have time to torture them mentally, the only worthwhile thing to do with either of them). The only poll that means anything is on Tuesday, November 7th. That's close enough, and I am patient enough, to be content waiting until then to get my answers. I happen to believe that we're likely to see two years of Speaker Pelosi, although not Majority leader Reid. I also happen to believe actual power-sharing with the Democrats in the session leading up to the 2008 elections will be a dream gift to any Republican with Presidential aspirations in that year. If I'm wrong on any of these beliefs, well, it won't shatter my world. We'll find out about the 2006 elections very soon. I can wait.