Blue Crab Boulevard

Senate Balance Hangs On Recounts

Well, I woke up to find that the Senate is now going to hinge on two extremely close races, Virginia and Montana. Webb has declared victory, but Allen has not conceded. The Washington Post is already throwing cold water on the people who might think the left wing pulled out a major victory here, the Democratic winners last night were mostly running as conservative/centrist Dems, not strident anti-war candidates.

The GOP reign in the House that began with Newt Gingrich in a burst of vision and confrontation in 1994 came crashing down amid voter disaffection with congressional corruption. The collapse of one-party rule in Washington will transform Bush's final two years in office and challenge Democrats to make the leap from angry opposition to partners in power.

How far the balance shifts to the left remains to be seen. The passion of the antiwar movement helped propel party activists in this election year, and the House leadership under the likely new speaker, Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), hails from the party's liberal wing. But the Democrats' victory was built on the back of more centrist candidates seizing Republican-leaning districts, and Pelosi emphasized that she will try to lead without becoming the ideological mirror of Gingrich.

We'll see. The left is already agitating for subpoenas to be issued, so it is not clear that Pelosi will – or even wants to – rein in the extremes. But we, as a nation, have a problem if we simply cut and run from Iraq. That remains my biggest fear and the biggest danger facing us.

Politics | Gaius November 8, 2006

By Quilly Mammoth, November 8, 2006 @ 7:37 am

In fact the Dems won by rejecting the strident. There were few blowouts. As Slate’s Bruce Reed says:
“But give Democrats credit. Apart from a foolish summer fling with Ned Lamont and a late Laugh-In cameo from John Kerry, Democrats did just about everything right and ran their best campaign in a decade. Field marshals Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer ignored the virtual industry of self-help nonsense that has paralyzed Democrats’ chattering classes and went back to a simple, proven formula: From the suburbs to the heartland, elections are won in the center.

Emanuel and Schumer went out of their way to recruit candidates that could put the party’s best face forward in otherwise-hostile territory. Despite pressure from various interests, they refused to impose ideological litmus tests. The result? Democrats did the opposite of what Republicans have been doing (and what losing Democratic campaigns usually do). Instead of shrinking their tent, Democrats made their big tent a lot bigger.

http://www.slate.com/id/2153167/?GT1=8805

The winners were often Clintonesque in the centerist appeal. Not surprising coming from clintonista Rahm Emanuel. Running candiates like that the Democrats avoided mobilizing the Republican base to come out and vote _against_ lefty ideologues.

However, it is surely true that the terrorists are dancing in the street.
By Ed, November 8, 2006 @ 8:27 am

Regarding subpeonas, as we’ve been hearing for 5 years of continuous assaults on civil liberties:

“There’s nothing to worry about if you’ve got nothing to hide.”

Well, lets see if they have nothing to hide. Me? I’d like to find out where 2.8 Trillion of deficit spending went, and personally, I think a lot of people may be going to jail.
By Former Republican, November 8, 2006 @ 9:22 am

“However, it is surely true that the terrorists are dancing in the street.”

Maybe you are right, Quilly Mammoth, but I have a different point of view. I believe the Republicans’ macho, aggressive, unilateralist foreign policy has played into the hands of the Islamic jihadists. The Republicans have done for them what they could not dream of doing for themselves. Or so I think, but maybe I’m wrong.

Quilly Mammoth, I am not an Islamic terrorist and neither are you, so have a bit of humility. I don’t really know what terrorists think and neither do you. And I doubt that all terrorists think alike.

What I do know is that a dividing a country makes it weaker. Believe that Democrats are wrong if you like — maybe you are right. But don’t use rhetoric that identifies a Democratic victory as a cause for terrorist celebration. Sowing hatred makes America weaker.
By dj heru, November 8, 2006 @ 10:49 am

So we learned that the actions of this administration vis a vis Iraq has greatly increased the appeal of Islamic fundamentalist terrorist tactics across the globe, has helped them earn the “hearts and minds” of much of the populace, and has, in their minds, given them an “evil opressor” to fight against.

Yet we are supposed to believe that the terrorists are going to be happy that Democrats are elected?!? Let’s look at this rationally-

1. Bush’s policies increase the threat of terrorism
2. Democrats were elected as a repudiation of Bush’s policies
3. Democrats will decrease the threat of terrorism
By BubbaB, November 8, 2006 @ 11:06 am

Uh, no. The number one thing to remember is this:

The terrorists come from cultures that can only be described as “macho.” They treat the women like crap, male children are unimportant until they reach an age where they can be taught to fight, female children are treated as a liability, and family and clan are far more important than nation.

They will view us leaving Iraq as a sign of weakness, period. We will suffer in the long term, because beating “The Great Satan” will only validate their position. That would be a significant recruitment tool. “They can be beaten!”
By Quilly Mammoth, November 8, 2006 @ 11:54 am

Actually, FR, I do know what terrorists are like. Furthermore, I read the intelligence reports which detailed the Radical Islamic Fundamentalist response to both Reagan and Clinton. Both Presidents were seen as weak in the face of terrorist action. “Redeployment”…Regardless of the Democrats intentions, and I believe that most of them think it is the right thing to do and won’t weaken the US, it _will_ be seen as American weakness.

There are two current theories of Diplomacy. One is called Containment. That is the type of diplomacy espoused by people such Gen. Zinni, President Clinton and so forth. It did work against the Soviets. The other theory of diplomacy is what many people refer to as “nation changing”. This theory, often credited to the Neo-Cons, holds that it is impossible to contain terrorists like one can a nation-state therefore the governments of countries which breed them…and hence the _culture_ also…must be changed.

This does tend to piss off hardline Fundies.

When Neo-Cons refer to “changing the face of the Middle East” they mean changing the way those nations govern themselves. Which, theoretically Containment theory says will happen over time with diplomatic pressure. Except that _it hasnâ€™t happened_ over the course of time. All it does is produce dictators like the Shah and pictures of people like Rummie shaking Saddamâ€™s hand. Neo-cons say that therefore such nation changing (regime change) must be done more aggressively using everything from funding internal groups to military action.
By Former Republican, November 8, 2006 @ 8:49 pm

QM: I do agree with you that withdrawal (redeployment, cutting and running, call it what you will) from Iraq will be seen as a sign of weakness. Trouble is, all of our alternatives that are politically feasible have horrible consquences attached, in my opinion anyway. If that’s right, then saying a particular course of action has horrible consequences doesn’t give you a basis for choosing one course of action over another. You have to ask, which is the least bad?

For example, my own guess is that the Baker-Hamilton commission is going to come down with a withdrawal timetable that will be completed next year, coupled with negotiations with Iran, Syria, Turkey and probably others.The Democrats and George Bush are both going to sign on. That would be seen, correctly, as a sign of weakness, but it may be the best we can do.