Some Good News From Tuesday

[Annie]

Whether we like it or not, we're all here together. I'm working toward the mindset that we need to pull together, in deeds if not philosophically. Until convinced through actions the Congress will work against the President, I'll try to lower the shrillness. That doesn't mean no criticism or skeptism, I've had plenty to throw at the administration and soon to be gone legislative majority.

I think the following are some points to keep in mind:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/934pzlak.asp

Six Reasons . . .
Why Tuesday wasn't that bad.
by Noemie Emery
11/10/2006 3:00:00 PM


1. It has to rain sometime.

Some people seem to believe that their party could and should stay in power forever, always holding all branches of government, and that any loss any time is inexcusable, and always is somebody's fault. This is insanity. No party has enough of the people, or enough of the truth, to make this sustainable: The system is built around balance of power, frequent reverses, enforced House cleanings, and changes in tone. As David Brooks notes, lack of power corrupts absolutely. In the 1950's, having lost the White House for five elections running, Republicans produced Joe McCarthy. In the past decade, Democrats lost Congress and some very tight races, and produced Michael Moore. Few conservatives are morose at the loss of the House, which ought to flip every decade for reasons of hygiene. Turn the rascals out, and bring in new rascals. And then throw the new rascals out.

2. If it has to rain sometime, let it rain now.

If you must have a bloodletting--and most presidents need one--this is the time for it. Better now than 2002, which was still the beginning; better now than 2004, which was presidential; better now than two years from now, which is presidential again. Let the Democrats vent, relish their triumph, and blow off some of the steam that would have exploded in 2008. Actually, this result drains the left of one of the big advantages held by the out-party after eight years of other-side dominance: the natural hunger for change. A centrist conservative who is stylistically different from Bush now has a better chance in '08, as a change from both the president, and from a left that is bound to pick up some baggage. Some of its chairs are accidents waiting to happen, and the strains in its caucus are evident. Will it be beloved by the '08 election? We'll see.

3. Adversity Rocks.

Sometimes, good outcomes can be too rich for one's health. In 1992 and 2004, two bright politicians named Bill Clinton and George W. Bush won big elections, carried both houses of Congress, and were hailed far and wide as political geniuses who had cemented the gains of their parties for the next generation. Both proceeded at once to take leave of their senses, and had their rears kicked hard two years later. As it turns out, people work well on a short leash under pressure, when they are aware they are being watched constantly, and know an opposition nearly at parity is well-poised to strike. The Republican Congress was the making of Clinton, who became so great on defense that people forgot he was a klutz when on the offensive, and Bush gained his reputation as a political wizard in a come-from-behind race against Governor Ann Richards; when facing Democratic control back in Austin, and governing in Washington on a razor-thin margin, after losing the popular vote. Bush has got to get back to the agile politician that he was when he was fighting adversity. It's not as if he doesn't know how.

4. This is still, after all, a center-right country.

The old allocation of conservative-moderate-liberal seems to have changed not a bit.

5. Iraq?

If Iraq is the killer they think it is, why did Ned Lamont lose 60-40 to two 'war' candidates in sky-blue Connecticut ; and why do McCain and Guiliani, two of the biggest hawks in the country, lead all comers in 2008 polls?

6. 'The conservative movement is dead!'

Not even Rasputin has died so many times as the modern conservative movement, which has been dying since mere moments after its birth. It first died in the 1982 midterms; it died a second time with Iran-Contra; a third time in 1992, when Bush pere lost to Bill Clinton; again in 1996, and after the 1998 midterms; a fifth time during the Florida recount, and now, wouldn't you know it, the damned thing is dying again. Of course, this time it IS dead, but, but they said that the last time, and all the times previous. It has been shot, strangled, stabbed, beaten, stomped on, had its hands cuffed and been tossed into the Neva River, and, sure enough, a short time later, is rising up with a grin. And it will again.

Noemie Emery is a contributing editor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD and the author of the forthcoming Great Expectations: The Troubled Lives of Political Families (Wiley).

 

[Annie]

Someone who 'gets' it. He should be in a GOP leadership position:

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/...061110/NEWS/611100328&SearchID=73262649492341

Article published Nov 10, 2006
Sessions says vote reflects frustration, not shift to liberalism

Ashley Herriman
Washington Correspondent
U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions said Thursday that the power shift in Congress “may be more a reflection of frustration than any affirmation of the fundamental Democratic agenda."

But the Alabama Republican said the new Congress would face the same challenges as the old: the war in Iraq and formu-lating a comprehensive immigration policy.

Sessions said he believed the Republican-controlled Congress was seen as insensitive to the concerns of working middle class voters and that dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq had greatly influenced the election.

“People are very uneasy and want to see some clear vision for a successful result," Sessions said of the war. “The general approach to this has got to be re-evaluation there."

His comments came in a tele-phone news conference from Mobile.

With respect to the nomination of Robert Gates to replace Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who resigned Wednesday, Sessions said he was supportive and thought the former CIA director was well-suited for the job.

“I’m confident that he has the right philosophy about our defense," said Sessions.

“I think his intelligence background could be very helpful in figuring out the right tactics and policies for Iraq, because it's not a question of brigades fighting brigades, its unconventional war-fare that depends incredibly on intelligence and how to utilize that intelligence well," he said.

In January, Sessions, fellow Alabama Republican U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby and the five Republican House members from Alabama will lose their committee and subcommittee chairmanships to Democrats. U.S. Reps. Bud Cramer, D-Huntsville, and Artur Davis, D-Birmingham, should see their stock rise.

Sessions said state military operations in Huntsville, where missile defense is headquartered, and in Anniston where the combat Stryker vehicle is fitted, and university projects in Tuscaloosa, Mobile, Huntsville and Birmingham could lose federal funding due to commit-tee demotions and policy shifts.

On the other hand, he said, spending reform is needed.

“The hard working American public that agrees with frugality did have a right to be upset the Republicans with the majority did not do more to contain [pork barrel spending] and did not oversee spending in federal government," he said. “The Democrats say they want some reform and if they push for it there will be plenty of Republican votes to do better."

Sessions predicted some grid-lock in Congress due to the Democratic takeover, but was optimistic about bipartisan co-operation.

“I think in our committee work a lot of things get done with less partisanship," Sessions said. “One thing you perhaps lose is the agenda setting ability chairmen have to hold hearings on whatever subject they want."

Sessions will lose his chair-manship of the subcommittee on Strategic Forces because of the new Democratic majority, but said he had worked successfully in the past with expected incoming chair, Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla.

Overall, Sessions said, members from both parties needed to “quit talking and do some things." He said Republicans should support the Democrats “when they’re right" but challenge them “when they’re wrong.’’

“I think it will be interesting to see if [the Democrats] can move from this relentless criticism to a more positive agenda," said Sessions. “The American people are giving them a chance now and I think they need to step up."

 

[William Joyce]

Jeff Sessions isn't too bad... he might actually, in a rare moment, concede my tagline.

 

[Annie]

Jeff Sessions isn't too bad... he might actually, in a rare moment, concede my tagline.

WJ there are times I would agree with you, that doesn't make me be in your image. Your image scares me and makes me ashamed. Which in itself is sad, since from reading what you've written over the years, allows me to know how bright you are.

 

[Adam's Apple]

No offense intended to your post, Kathianne, but as far as I'm concerned, the only good news that would come out of last Tuesday's election is if we learned the Democrats didn't mean any of that drivel they've been spouting since the 2000 election, and they actually do put forth an effort to work with Republicans on important national matters, like security and terrorism. Now wouldn't that be a GREAT surprise!

 

[Annie]

No offense intended to your post, Kathianne, but as far as I'm concerned, the only good news that would come out of last Tuesday's election is if we learned the Democrats didn't mean any of that drivel they've been spouting since the 2000 election, and they actually do put for an effort to work with Republicans on important national matters, like security and terrorism. Now wouldn't that be a GREAT surprise!

and only time will tell. In the meantime, the party needs to rethink where they want to go and how to get there. They've allowed, perhaps even abetted the infighting. GW on immigration has been divisive to the party. NOW he's getting what he wants-amnesty and no wall.

Then there was the Schiavo problem, which he insinuated the federal government into, alienating many-though an at least partially different subgroup of the party.

Then there was the ports problem, which added more disenchanted members. The list goes on.

 

[dilloduck]

and only time will tell. In the meantime, the party needs to rethink where they want to go and how to get there. They've allowed, perhaps even abetted the infighting. GW on immigration has been divisive to the party. NOW he's getting what he wants-amnesty and no wall.

Then there was the Schiavo problem, which he insinuated the federal government into, alienating many-though an at least partially different subgroup of the party.

Then there was the ports problem, which added more disenchanted members. The list goes on.

In all my reading and listening I have heard nothing that remotely asserts that the "ports problem" or the "Shiavo problem" affected the elections one iota. Is this some common knowledge that I missed or just an opinion you hold?

 

[Annie]

In all my reading and listening I have heard nothing that remotely asserts that the "ports problem" or the "Shiavo problem" affected the elections one iota. Is this some common knowledge that I missed or just an opinion you hold?

If you want to know why the GOP lost, you have to figure out what led voters away-whether they voted against or didn't vote at all. A party needs to attract, not alienate.

 

[dilloduck]

If you want to know why the GOP lost, you have to figure out what led voters away-whether they voted against or didn't vote at all. A party needs to attract, not alienate.

I know---thats why I asked if there is any evidence that the "ports problem" or the "Schiavo problem" were a factor in the GOP loss.

 

[Annie]

I know---thats why I asked if there is any evidence that the "ports problem" or the "Schiavo problem" were a factor in the GOP loss.

It's being discussed by some. There has to be analysis of what has happened. There is no doubt about it, factions are dividing the party. What has to be addressed is how to find the common threads which brought them together.

I don't think Gingrich can run, but he can help out in this realm.

 

[dilloduck]

It's being discussed by some. There has to be analysis of what has happened. There is no doubt about it, factions are dividing the party. What has to be addressed is how to find the common threads which brought them together.

I don't think Gingrich can run, but he can help out in this realm.

Who is discussing the "ports problem" and the "Schiavo problem" and where can I read about it ?

 

[Annie]

Who is discussing the "ports problem" and the "Schiavo problem" and where can I read about it ?

Right now, you can't. Go sign up at your county GOP headquarters.

Did you notice what I posted regarding the Baker Commission? Things are not looking good.

 

[dilloduck]

Right now, you can't. Go sign up at your county GOP headquarters.

Did you notice what I posted regarding the Baker Commission? Things are not looking good.

ahhhhhhhhhh it's an insider thingy !!! Tell em not to waste too much time on it at the next meeting OK ?
Now the Baker thingy is pretty common knowledge--it's on TV and everything. I think I'll wait until something happens before I throw in my conservative towel.

 

[Adam's Apple]

GW on immigration has been divisive to the party. NOW he's getting what he wants-amnesty and no wall.

Amnesty is a foregone conclusion. Businessmen (big contributors to GOP) get cheap labor, and the Dems get all those illegal Latinos as voters. In the eyes of Washington, that a WIN-WIN.

 

[Annie]

Amnesty is a foregone conclusion. Businessmen (big contributors to GOP) get cheap labor, and the Dems get all those illegal Latinos as voters. In the eyes of Washington, that a WIN-WIN.

It's been on the news that the Republicans that ran against illegal immigrants lost their seat, what the media fails to point out is that their democratic challengers ran even moreso against amnesty.

I think both sides are in the process of misreading what the election meant last week, to the voters.

 

[Annie]

This will go down easier:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008498.php

November 12, 2006
Jumpin' Joe?

Joe Lieberman fired a warning shot across the bow of the Democrats in his Meet the Press appearance this morning. When asked whether he would consider following Jim Jeffords' example and switch parties, Lieberman pointedly left his options open:

Sen. Joe Lieberman on Sunday repeated his pledge to caucus with Senate Democrats when the 110th Congress convenes in January, but refused to slam the door on possibly moving to the Republican side of the aisle.

Asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" if he might follow the example of Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont, who left the Republicans in 2001 and became an independent, ending Republican control of the U.S. Senate, Lieberman refused to discount the possibility.

"I'm not ruling it out but I hope I don't get to that point," he said. "And I must say -- and with all respect to the Republicans who supported me in Connecticut -- nobody ever said, 'We're doing this because we want you to switch over. We want you to do what you think is right and good for our state and country,' and I appreciate that."​

This should have the port side of the blogosphere in a dither this afternoon. Lieberman got elected partly through the efforts of Connecticut Republicans, who turned out in force to support the incumbent Democrat. No one openly asked Lieberman about crossing the aisle at the time, although plenty of speculation existed during the campaign, even among Lamont supporters.

Until I heard this quote from a CQ reader earlier today, I didn't believe that Lieberman would seriously consider it. He has a long track record in support of the Democratic platform. In fact, that's one of the reasons so many of us were surprised that the Leftroots tried to unseat him. Lieberman is no Lincoln Chafee in relation to his caucus (who, by the way, told someone on Election Day that he would not remain a Republican for long).

This underscores the importance of Lieberman to the control of the Senate. If he switches parties, he delivers control of the Senate to the GOP for the next two years, and makes Dick Cheney a very busy man. It forces the Democrats to carefully consider Lieberman when determining policy, especially on the war. It might force the Democrats to escalate efforts to get a Republican to cross the aisle, which would neutralize Lieberman. After the loss of Chafee, though, the pickings would be slim. Democratic leadership also has to consider Jim Webb, the Buchananite that ran as a Democrat, on everything else but the war.

Harry Reid will have his hands full over the next two years.

 

[Avatar4321]

well looks like Lieberman knows how to use the power he has. He is probably one of the most powerful Senators in the US Senate right now simply because he can change who controls the Senate if he wanted to.

 

[Annie]

well looks like Lieberman knows how to use the power he has. He is probably one of the most powerful Senators in the US Senate right now simply because he can change who controls the Senate if he wanted to.

Yep and he owes it all to the CT Republicans.