Send As SMS
Shots In The Dark
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
  The People Have Spoken
What a night! I had insomnia and stayed up till 2 A.M. watching the returns, the result being that a) I'm exhausted, b) late on deadline, and c) more or less incoherent. I'd love to be able to articulate a well-reasoned, forceful, insightful blog item about what it all means. But frankly, I'm not sure I could do that under the best of conditions. So here are my random impressions

1) Whoo-hoo! (See post above.)

2) What a pleasure not to have to see Rick Santorum's smarmy face any more. (Though Bill Bennett said on CNN that there's be a "draft Santorum" movement by the party's social conservative base. Good luck with that, guys. This entire election was a repudiation of you.)

3) Man, were the guys at Fox bummed out. Brit Hume looked like he'd taken about five Zoloft. And Bill Kristol looked massively annoyed—as opposed to his usual, just kind of cranky look— that he was the one who had to work that silly on-screen, football-like chart that they kept using, which was clearly as incomprehensible to him as it was to the rest of us.

4) CNN's coverage was just fundamentally better than Fox's. The Fox team of Hume, Kristol, Kondracke, Barnes, and the token liberal whose name I'm forgetting due to aforementioned insomnia and his own insignificance on Fox, is tired. Not as tired as I am, but tired.

Whereas CNN had better graphics, a wider array of analysts, and less-partisan analysts, such as Jeff Greenfield, Candy Crowley, and John King.

(The guy from Newsweek, however, was a total bust. Did you see him stare into the camera and make what he clearly thought was a dramatic plea to politicians not to put us all through a long, extended recount in Virginia? Painful.)

5) Boy, did John McCain look depressed. For the last year or so, he's been running hard-right, sucking up to the party's ultra-conservative base. Whoops! America just said no to that. McCain sacrificed his principles for political advantage, and now it turns out that he bet wrong. Whoops! He is a far, far weaker presidential candidate than he was a year or so ago.

6) On CNN, McCain was asked about what happened, and he said, "We lost a lot of good men tonight, a lot of close friends." Hey, John—it's not war. The war is actually that thing you've been supporting, and we just rejected it.

7) Joe Lieberman. Ugh. Double-ugh. There was, essentially, no way he could lose when the Republicans' own candidate got a whopping ten percent of the vote. But this win does put him in a strange position. He won with Republicans, considerably more of whom voted for him than did Democrats. But he swore up and down that he'd caucus with the Dems. Will anyone trust him? They shouldn't. Joe Lieberman is out for #1, and always has been.

8) Hillary, Hillary, Hillary. 69% last I saw. She has a problem—her support of the war—but I think that's fixable. ("We were lied to," etc.) She is in a very strong position.

9) Social extremism was rejected...sometimes. South Dakotans nixed a ban on abortion, but Arizona passed four measures aimed at illegal immigrants, such as one that made English the state's official language. (Oh, grow up, Arizona.) Anti-gay marriage amendments passed in Tennesse, Idaho, South Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin (Wisconsin?), meaning that homophobia is the one value that both liberals and conservatives can agree on. Also meaning that straight people want the ability to screw without consequences, but they don't want gay people to be able to screw responsibly. Go figure.

10) Nancy Pelosi may be the first female speaker of the House, but she didn't help the Dems much, and let's face it, she's no political visionary. Never has such a mediocre politician benefited so consistently from being in the right place at the right time.

11) Rahm Emanuel, on the other hand, is smart, tough, and ballsy. (I can't believe I wrote about him 13 years ago! Holy cow, where did the time go? And did I really say that David Gergen "wears ideologies like Mr. Potato Head wears faces"? In retrospect, I...like it!)

12) I love that the ultra-tough-on-immigration GOP congressman lost in Arizona, and wish I could say that it meant support for a more enlightened immigration policy. But given the success of those anti-immigrant proposals there, I'd have to say it's more just a middle finger to Bush.

13) The single biggest loser of the night...Kevin Federline. The gravy train is over, my friend. And just as Britney's looking good again.....

14) Second biggest loser: George Bush. That giant sucking sound you hear is the relevance leaking out of the last two years of his administration. He deserves the come-uppance. Centrists like me gave Bush a chance. Okay, he's president, even though he may not really be president. Maybe he really will govern from the center. Maybe that compassionate conservatism stuff really isn't all bullshit.

Nah. It was all bullshit.

15) Other losers: Donald Rumsfeld—pack your bags, Mr. Secretary. Karl Rove—not such a genius any more, are you? Rush Limbaugh—probably the difference in Claire McCaskill's Missouri victory. Dick Cheney—"full speed ahead" in Iraq? I don't think so. Ken Mehlman: Well, despite your best (and sincere, I think) efforts to reach out to new voter blocs, blacks and Latinos have repudiated your party more than ever. You are now basically the party of the Southern homophobic white. Demographically—speaking, good luck with that.

16) And speaking of Missouri, can we institute a ban on anyone who is not actually from that state pronouncing it "Missour-ah"? Please, people. Just because they speak funny doesn't mean everyone else has to. Leave it to the candidates to suck up to Mis-ery voters by affecting a regional accent. (And good for you, Anderson Cooper—you not only did a fine job last night, but you refused to play along with the Missour-ah game.)

17) Another loser: the New York state Republican party, which got, like, six votes yesterday. You people are pathetic. Here's a suggestion: Maybe Al D'Amato really isn't the best guy to be the most powerful person in your party.

18) Part of me feels bad for moderate Republicans like Lincoln Chafee and Nancy Johnson. But not that bad.

19) Arnold. Man, he looks good—that guy is Botoxed up the wazoo. His win shows that progressive government—and a pro-environmental stance—can be a winning combination for Republicans, who are now more and more isolated on the environmental issue. Voters may not rank it up there with Iraq and the economy, but it's a factor, no question.

20) Winners: The American people. I happen to like the way the votes went, for the most part, but the thing I really like is that the voters made a difference. As much as the incumbents try to make it impossible to ever lose their seats, and the Washington lobbyists try to prop up those they've been paying off for years, sometimes the people show that democracy can still work. It ain't pretty, but it's a beautiful thing.
 
Comments:
You were right. This was not a "well-reasoned, forceful, insightful" entry. This is acceptable gloating but utterly lacking in substance ("we're against war, that's all we know"). Go on thinking that Repulicans, at or around 50% of the population, are only comprised of "Southern homophobic whites," and this small majority will certainly evaporate when the momentum swings back in '08 and after the GOP has regrouped, hopefully purging some of the Santorums (you're right there) from the ranks (Why pander to the religious right? They're never going to vote Democratic, so aim for the center-right). I'm happier to give this over now so it can be retaken in two years--give the Democrats the mic while the sound is off, take it back when the show starts. For today, however, congratulations on a moderately successful campaign.
 
Utterly lacking in substance? Now, that's just not fair.

Of course your point is well-made—the Dems have to actually do something now, and they are perfectly capable of screwing that up—and of course I was being hyperbolic in my categorization of the GOP (some people have no sense of humor, but if you look at the map, that red domination just shrunk considerably.

Also, that business about giving the Democrats the mic while the sound is off? You ought to go into politics, my friend, because that is 100% pure spin.
 
You were expecting maybe Kumbaya? And hyperbolic or not, that point is repeatedly asserted in various forms, and it's that sort of over-simplification or underestimation that will keep Dems from meaningful majorities. Continuing to dismiss issues as either "red" or "blue" helps no one. Hopefully with this election behind us, we can all start to grow up a bit (me included). For the next few days, however, you can remain jubilant as I will remain bitter.
 
Deal. I get to be jubilant for a few days, and you get to be bitter for, oh, let's say six years.
 
More like two--the base majority will no doubt return with the new Republican president (or with the threat of Hillary). In two years time, these new members of congress won't be able to brag about anything except gridlock, and they'll need a stronger platform than just being anti-Bush.
 
That is based more on wishful thinking than on any explicit argument.

It also presumes an end to our involvement in Iraq by 11/08.

Also, let's face it: The GOP has a weak bunch of candidates. Giuliani? Not a chance. Just wait till the conservatives find out he kept a mistress and lived with a gay guy, and that'll be that. Romney? He's Bob Forehead with potentially more wives. McCain? Seriously damaged. I think Chuck Hagel's interesting, but I don't know if he has the name recognition or the money.

George Allen? Rick Santorum? Please. Frist? Don't make me laugh.

Am I forgetting anyone?

Now would be Colin Powell's time....
 
I think some would disagree with your appraisal of McCain. He's broadened his support among conservatives, of which he already had plenty. He can win over independents rather easily with his opposition to special interest groups and his advocacy for campaign finance reform. Actually, if not for his age, he'd be totally set. The age question will be key.

Besides, we're talking about going against Hillary here (Obama better wait and not squander his capital in '08). Every card-carrying GOP'er will literally be willing to drop what he/she is doing and volunteer to make sure she doesn't make it. Her name on a ticket would be a Republican get-out-the-vote wet dream. And the GOP usually wins a sizable majority among men already (all men), and her lack of popularity there means the White House just can't happen for her. Sorry.
 
On McCain, no way. He's contradicted himself and become incoherent. And he wants more troops for Iraq. That deal is done, baby. Stick a fork in it.

On Hillary, maybe. Of course, she'd prompt huge turnout among supporters as well as opponents, and as we just saw, that can work for the Dems, too. Also, I think Republicans consistently underestimate her. Oh, sure, they pump her up as a scare tactic to motivate the base. But what I mean is, they underestimate her ability to win over people who used to dislike her. New York isn't just the City, you know, and upstate is GOP-land. (Well, it was until yesterday.) Yet Hillary has done just fine up there....

Barack should run. This is his moment. He'll either win, or lose and be picked to be a veep candidate. Either way, he'll get out of the Senate, which is doom for a presidential candidate. (See Dole, Kerry, Frist, countless others.)
 
(Another anonymous)

17) Another loser: the New York state Republican party, which got, like, six votes yesterday. You people are pathetic. Here's a suggestion: Maybe Al D'Amato really isn't the best guy to be the most powerful person in your party.

Hey - look north. What about the NH 'Publican party? Dems have solid control of both houses of the lege? When did that last happen?
 
Post a Comment



<< Home
Politics, Media, Academia, Pop Culture, and More

Name:richard
Location:New York, New York
ARCHIVES
02/01/2005 - 02/28/2005 / 03/01/2005 - 03/31/2005 / 04/01/2005 - 04/30/2005 / 05/01/2005 - 05/31/2005 / 06/01/2005 - 06/30/2005 / 07/01/2005 - 07/31/2005 / 08/01/2005 - 08/31/2005 / 09/01/2005 - 09/30/2005 / 10/01/2005 - 10/31/2005 / 11/01/2005 - 11/30/2005 / 12/01/2005 - 12/31/2005 / 01/01/2006 - 01/31/2006 / 02/01/2006 - 02/28/2006 / 03/01/2006 - 03/31/2006 / 04/01/2006 - 04/30/2006 / 05/01/2006 - 05/31/2006 / 06/01/2006 - 06/30/2006 / 07/01/2006 - 07/31/2006 / 08/01/2006 - 08/31/2006 / 09/01/2006 - 09/30/2006 / 10/01/2006 - 10/31/2006 / 11/01/2006 - 11/30/2006 /


Powered by Blogger