Now You Have it. How You Gonna Hold It?

At least some Democrats realize that their win on Tuesday was extremely tenuous. While some on the netroots side think they got a mandate, (by using third grade arithmetic rather than intelligent statistical analysis) the more experienced political operatives are, frankly, scared about trying to hold what they won into the next election. They understand they got loaned votes, not an ideological shift in America.

As some Democrats begin looking to 2008 and beyond, the challenge is how to turn antipathy toward Republicans into affection for Democrats.

"You can't count on that kind of a wave in every election by any means," Democratic pollster Mark Mellman said.

Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record) of New York, the chairman of the Senate Democratic campaign committee, acknowledged that the Democrats' 51-49 majority in the Senate was the result of the narrowest of victories in six race. "Had 10,000 votes flipped we would have four seats not six," he said. (Emphasis added).

Democrats do see opportunities ahead.

In 2008, there are 21 Republican Senate seats up for election and only 12 Democratic seats. Eight of the Republicans in those seats won their last election with 55 percent or less of the vote.

In the House, where Democrats held 230 seats and appeared to be in line to win two more, all 435 members face re-election in 2008.

"The good news for Democrats is that we don't need a wave to keep the seats we have," Mellman said.

Democrats came into power calling for a change in course in Iraq. They promised to clean up government, create better economic conditions for the middle class and ensure cheaper drugs for the elderly.

"People are open to a longer term Democratic majority," Schumer said, "but we have to seal the deal."

Schumer proposed a three-step plan for Democrats.

It would begin with modest plans to increase the minimum wage, provide more tax breaks on college tuition, encourage greater energy independence and require drug companies to negotiate for lower Medicare drug prices.

Democrats then must work in bipartisan fashion to confront the war in Iraq and government deficits, Schumer said.

"Thirdly, we have to try our best to come up with a full vision and platform that points toward '08," he said.

To some Democrats, the party's biggest task is maintaining credibility on national security.

Since the Vietnam War, Republicans have held an advantage with voters on defense and security issues. But the Iraq war soured many voters on Republicans. By early fall, polls showed the public trusted Democrats more on resolving Iraq and trusted them equally with Republicans in combating terrorism.

Susan Rice, a foreign policy expert who was a senior adviser to Democrat John Kerry's presidential campaign in 2004, said Democratic candidates improved in the polls when they directly challenged Bush's war policy with more pointed ads and public statements

"Somewhere along the line in the last few months, the Democrats got some spine and got the courage to say out loud what they had been saying behind closed doors, which is that the president's national security policy has been an utter failure, has made us less safe, and that Iraq is Exhibit A for that failure," she said after Tuesday's vote.

But Rice said the Democratic gains on national security "are very tenuous" and the party should proceed cautiously on Iraq.

If the Democrats really want to cement a future, they must not follow a path of endless investigation into the past and try to solve problems going forward. The nutroots, however, have different ideas. Watching this struggle will be informative. And amusing.

UPDATE: Tom Elia saw this offered "proof" of a mandate as well. It is, of course, no such thing.

Spinning Christians

Or more specifically, spinning poll results on Christians. Reuters does its level best to paint a poll by Beliefnet into major significance by hurling the headline: "Poll: More evangelicals sour toward Republicans". Did the Republicans lose some votes? Sure. Is it a landslide away from them? Not even close.

In a Beliefnet poll of 771 evangelical Christians from Tuesday to Thursday, 30 percent said they voted for fewer Republicans than in previous elections. Evangelicals have been a core base of Republican support.

About 15 percent of respondents said they voted for more Republican candidates, while 55 percent said they voted for the same number of Republicans as before.

The findings were in line with exit poll estimates such as CNN's, which found about 70 percent of white evangelicals voted Republican in Tuesday's elections in which Democrats regained control of the U.S. Congress from President George W. Bush's Republicans.

While still strong, that level of support was below the 74 to 78 percent range that different surveys found in the 2004 election.

Significantly, about 60 percent of those polled in the Beliefnet survey said their views of the Republican Party had become less positive in recent years.

"It's not that they are soured with the Republican approach to culture war issues like abortion, it's that they are angry with them on issues such as Iraq and corruption," said Steven Waldman, editor in chief of Beliefnet.com, a Web site on issues of faith.

As with other Americans, the Iraq war topped evangelicals' list of electoral concerns, with 22.5 percent citing it as the issue that most affected their votes.

Respondents were not asked to specify if Iraq was a negative or positive factor, so some who cited it may have voted in support of Bush's Iraq policies. Other surveys have found white evangelical support for the unpopular war to be higher than among other Americans.

Poll questions like this ask people if something is too little or too much and count both equally in the same total. Always a problem with this number when it is tossed around. That 60% number that is so significant to Reuters is explained by the same phenomenon. Will that make the Christian right vote for Democrats? Not really likely.

THANK YOU

As of 10:38CST (meaning it is before midnight on the East coast) Project Valour-IT has raised $180,920. The goal was $180,000. The US Navy has the bragging rights with $50,818.85 raised. The US Marines came in at second with $46,437.12.

Thank you to everyone who helped out.

If We Break Faith

In Flanders Fields
By: Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, MD (1872-1918)
Canadian Army

IN FLANDERS FIELDS the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Beggar Breaks Free!

Earlier, we brought you the heartwarming story of the deer who was trying to get additional Halloween candy on the mother of all Beggar's Nights. Well, it seems the deer has decided that the loot had dropped off sufficiently that it was no longer profitable. So it chucked its plastic Halloween bucket and scampered off.

Two children found a dented, hair-lined plastic pumpkin in their yard Friday night, and other neighbors saw a thin deer running free, The Grand Rapids Press reported. It was rainy Friday, which rescuers think helped the young deer wriggle free.

Rescuers had planned to use a dart gun to tranquilize the yearling, then remove the bucket, meant for collecting candy.

The bucket was stuck on the animal's snout, hanging like a feed bag, preventing it from eating or drinking. It had appeared to be snagged on the buck's ears or horn buds.

The earlier story reported that the deer looked fine, but this one reports he looked thin. We think we may have an answer to explain this discrepancy. The bucket was fur-lined, right? So it should be obvious why the deer looked different.

It is now bald.

Do NOT Mess With This Woman

She is, apparently, bulletproof.

SAO PAULO, Brazil - A woman was released from the hospital a day after she was shot in the head six times in an attack police blamed on her ex-husband, Brazilian media reported Saturday.

Patricia Goncalves Pereira, a 21-year-old housewife, was shot Friday after an altercation with her ex-husband, who was upset because she refused to get back together with him, Globo TV reported.

"I know this was a miracle," Pereira told the TV network. "Now I just want to extract the bullets and live my life."

Doctors could not explain how Pereira survived the attack. The .32-caliber bullets didn't break through her skull and didn't even need to be immediately extracted, doctors said. Pereira also was shot once in the hand.

The husband has not been located. Given how tough this lady is, I suspect that's in his best interests.

Honoring Those Who Served

Pajamas Media has the roundup of items from all over on this day and what it means.

In November of 1919, President Woodrow Wilson issued his Armistice Day proclamation.  The last paragraph set the tone for future observances:
   To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country's service and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and justice in the councils of the nation.

   In 1927 Congress issued a resolution requesting President Calvin Coolidge to issue a proclamation calling upon officials to display the Flag of the United States on all government buildings on November 11, and inviting the people to observe the day in schools and churches…But it was not until 1938 that Congress passed a bill that each November 11 "shall be dedicated to the cause of world peace and …hereafter celebrated and known as Armistice Day." 
   That same year President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a bill making the day a legal holiday in the District of Columbia. For sixteen years the United States formally observed Armistice Day, with impressive ceremonies at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, where the Chief Executive or his representative placed a wreath.  In many other communities, the American Legion was in charge of the observance, which included parades and religious services.  At 11 A.M. all traffic stopped, in tribute to the dead, then volleys were fired and taps sounded.
   After World War II, there were many new veterans who had little or no association with World War I.  The word, "armistice," means simply a truce; therefore as years passed, the significance of the name of this holiday changed.  Leaders of Veterans' groups decided to try to correct this and make November 11 the time to honor all who had fought in various American wars, not just in World War I.
   In Emporia, Kansas, on November 11, 1953, instead of an Armistice Day program, there was a Veterans' Day observance.  Ed Rees, of Emporia, was so impressed that he introduced a bill into the House to change the name to Veterans' Day.  After this passed, Mr. Rees wrote to all state governors and asked for their approval and cooperation in observing the changed holiday.  The name was changed to Veterans' Day by Act of Congress on May 24, 1954.  In October of that year, President Eisenhower called on all citizens to observe the day by remembering the sacrifices of all those who fought so gallantly, and through rededication to the task of promoting an enduring peace.  The President referred to the change of name to Veterans' Day in honor of the servicemen of all America's wars. 

Thank you to all who have served.  

Six Hundred Dollars Short!

Folks, Project Valour-IT is only about $600 short of reaching the goal of $180,000 toward purchase of voice-enabled computers to help our wounded veterans. Please, if you can spare a few dollars, it is for a very, very worthy cause. They defend us, it is the least we can do to help them when they need us most. The donate button is on the sidebar. 

Ransom Note

Send us large sums of money or you'll never see your unity again. The French have their collective shorts in le knot over a unity logo adopted by the European Union to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the formation of the union. Some critics have said the logo, a colorful jumble of letters that spell 'together', evokes a ransom note rather than a logo. The French, being the French, object to the use of English.

France has sent a stiff complaint to Brussels about the European Union’s choice of logo to commemorate its 50th birthday next year.

The offending image, a child-like rendition of the English word together, does nothing to serve the cause of European unity, the French Government claims.

Their objections come after a shower of rude comment throughout Europe about the logo, which was chosen at a cost of €200,000 (£134,000) last month by a jury of experts from EU institutions and member states. The winning entry from among 1,700 submissions was the work of a Polish art student. A common gibe on the internet is that the jumbled letters evoke a ransom note more than festive celebration of the 1957 Treaty of Rome. The full slogan says: “Together since 1957”.

In a letter to José Manuel Barroso, President of the EU Commission, Catherine Colonna, the French Minister for Europe, said: “The logo creates a problem. The message of European unity is not there because each logo is different.” She was referring to plans for each country to produce a version in its own language.

So to overcome French objections the logo will now have a version for every single member state. Celebrate unity the French way! Spit on your neighbors!

The Fight On The Right

Growing kerfluffle on the right side of the 'sphere. The discussion today is on the rush to praise the Democrat's victory on Tuesday by self-avowed enemies of the United States. My take on this is that if the Democrat's stances and policies appeal to the thugs and dictators of the world, it really is time for them to take a hard look at what their message is. I, like Ann Althouse want to see some pushback from the Democrats against this praise flowing from people who want America to fall.

Ed Morrisey says give the Democrats some slack. Some who agree with Ed, OTB (Steven Taylor blogging), Rick Moran,  

Others have no patience at all with the Dems pre-election rhetoric: Cold Fury, Dan Riehl, Powerline,

For my part, I denounced - often - the Democrat's rhetoric before the election. Now that they have won the election, we do, indeed, need to work together as Americans. It would be nice to see that pushback against the people who are giving them what I am sure they consider unwanted praise. The fact is the praise is there, from some very bad people. How about that pushback?

Different Yardsticks

Phillip Carter, who served in Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division, write an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times that explains the different yardsticks that are used to measure people and their actions. The two measures are not the same in the military world as they are in the civilian.

Frequently over the last two months, my friends have referred to me and other veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan as "heroes." This has disturbed me a great deal, forming another sort of alienation that is likely to become particularly acute this Veterans Day. American society venerates all soldiers as heroes, yet we in the military reserve that label for those who truly go above and beyond the call of duty. To us, the ordinary soldiers who merely served in harm's way, the label feels like a garish shirt — it neither describes us well nor fits us comfortably.

During peacetime, I remember wondering how I would perform under fire for the first time. I vividly recall my first raid in Iraq, when my team hit its first improvised explosive device, thanking God and my training that I did not wet my pants in fear. We stand in awe of those who, at the moment of truth, can muster the moral and physical courage to stand above the rest by rushing to a wounded comrade or into a hostile building.

Heroic legends, from the stories of Homer to the modern-day medal citations in Iraq, are passed on from sergeants to privates, captains to lieutenants. We mark these men and women with ribbons and medals to reward their heroism, but also to establish these warriors as role models whose example might encourage the rest of us soldiers.

Civilian society venerates its heroes too, often for similar reasons. Who can forget the example of the firefighters and police officers who rushed into the burning World Trade Center on Sept. 11? But in today's society, the mere act of volunteering for military service has somehow mutated into a heroic act.

Less than 1% of our country wears a military uniform; fewer still have served in Iraq or Afghanistan. Instead of being seen as a duty that should be borne by all, military service has been transformed into an elective chosen by the few. Today, with America at war, the burden of service is heavy, but it is not wide. Small military communities such as Oceanside, Calif.; and Clarksville, Tenn., feel the human cost of this war, but they are unusual in America. And so we lavish praise on those who make this decision, regardless of whether their choice is owed to personal patriotism, ambition or a quest for opportunity.

Read the whole thing. It is very evident how different the yardsticks are to those who serve. Coming from an Army family I see the differences if only vaguely since I was not allowed to serve myself. Carter is quite correct that the standard for being a hero within the armed forces is exceedingly high. My son touched on this same subject when he wrote of seeing the elephant.

US Navy Will Help Free USS Intrepid

The United States Navy will assist in freeing the USS Intrepid from the mud that holds her stuck fast in New York Harbor. No details of what that help will exactly entail were announced.

The agreement comes after the floating carrier museum refused to budge Monday despite tugboats' attempts to pull it from the mud at its Manhattan pier. The ship has rested in the spot for 24 years.

Under the agreement — hammered out after four days of talks between officials of the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum and the Pentagon — the Navy will give salvage support to try to free the vessel. That support will fall within guidelines of the Army Corps of Engineers permit issued to the museum for dredging.

Still unknown is when the operation will be finished and the carrier towed to Bayonne, N.J.

"The Intrepid Museum is thankful to the Navy and to the Army Corps of Engineers for the great help they are providing to this effort," Arnold Fisher, the museum chairman, said in a statement.

Hopefully, this will get the Intrepid underway to the drydock. It would seem to me that the dredging they did before the attempt to pull her out on Monday was insufficient since the ship's props got stuck in the mud, but I presume they are going to address that. Here's the Wikipedia entry on the Intrepid, by the way and an article on the Essex class carriers.

How Close Was It?

Karl Rove talks to Time Magazine's Mike Allen. The analysis of the election outcome is interesting, this was a razor thin win in many, many races.

Rove is famous for his political statistics, and his team has come up with an array of figures to contend that the Republicans' loss of 29 seats in the House and six in the Senate is not so out of whack with the historic norms. In all sixth year midterms, the President's party has lost an average of 29 House seats and 3 Senate seats, according to these figures. In all sixth-year midterms since World War II, the loss was an average of 31 House and 6 Senate seats. And in all wartime midterms since 1860, the average loss was 32 House and 5 Senate seat.

The Republican get-out-the-vote program Rove helped invent precluded even deeper losses, he says. "People were talking 35, 40 or more and it didn't happen," he said. "There were a number of elections which were supposed to be close and ended up not being close."

The Republican National Committee has been pointing out that a small shift in votes would have made a big difference. A shift of 77,611 votes would have given Republicans control of the House, according to Bush's political team. And a shift of 2,847 votes in Montana, or 7,217 votes in Virginia, or 41,537 votes in Missouri would have given a Republicans control of the Senate. In addition, the party has calculated that the winner received 51 percent or less in 35 contests, and that 23 races were decided by two percentage points or fewer, 18 races were decided by fewer than 5,000 votes, 15 races were decided by fewer than 4,000 votes, 10 races were decided by fewer than 3,000 votes, eight were decided by fewer than 2,000 votes and five races were decided by fewer than 1,000 votes.

It really was very close, wasn't it? Besides the Republican GOTV, I wonder how many votes were pushed to the Republicans by John Kerry in the last week of the election. We'll never know that, of course. But one does wonder. There is a need to move along and not dwell on the past election, of course. And it's about time to do that.

Armistice Day

It was once known as Armistice day. The 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month was the time and date chosen for the guns to fall silent in Europe in 1918. It is now called Veteran's Day here in the US and Remembrance Day in the British Commonwealth countries. It is a time to remember and a time to give thanks.

Project Valour-IT is another way to remember - and help - our wounded service members. As of this morning the fundraiser stands about $7,000 under the goal of $180,000. Please consider giving your tax deductible donation today. Fundraiser button on the sidebar or see here for other branches of the service.

The Challenge

David Shribman points out the challenge facing the Democrats now. He calls winning the election the easy part. The hard part is choosing what to do with the power once you've taken control.

That was the easy part. Taking over the Congress, that is. Let's face the truth here: Scoring a triumph over Republicans who themselves were impatient with the Republican record during an unpopular war was no great achievement, despite the great deal of celebrating that it prompted among Democratic partisans. Indeed, the startling thing would have been if, under these circumstances, the Democrats hadn't prevailed.

But they did, and though only a few days have passed since the big moment, a sobering wave should be passing through Democratic ranks right about now. They have the Congress, the great prize. But power brings responsibility, and even in a system that permits and perhaps encourages divided government, the burden now passes to the Democrats. They have to do something with that power besides reward themselves with chairmanships and patronage and the psychic spoils of office.

That is the hard part, and when the Republicans pulled the same trick a dozen years ago, in 1994, they had an enormous advantage. They had, besides four decades' worth of seething resentment over slights small and large, a roadmap. They had the Contract With America, which was really a contract with themselves.

The Democrats have a plan for the first few days, and much of it involves getting sworn in and swearing not to do as the Republicans have done. That is not good enough. If they are looking at their 2006 victory as a staging ground for 2008, which is the political way of doing things, they are going to maneuver the president into one uncomfortable corner after another for the pure recreational value of it all. If, on the other hand, they look at last week's victory as a chance to change the country, there's going to be a lot less recreation but perhaps some value.

So the first thing they have to do is to choose between those options. Do the purely political and make the president look powerless at a time when American power is being tested in Iraq? Or do the responsible thing and try to govern the country as if the nation had said something Tuesday besides indicating that it was weary of the guys who have been in power for six years and who, tired and tendentious, seem to have run out of gas.

If they take the latter route — if they try to govern from their beachhead in Congress — then they will have to do something more than simply say no to the president.

All the indications are pointing to the Democrats taking office and beginning to look boldly into the past by starting investigation after investigation. Henry Waxman is waxing poetic about how much power he will have to rake the administration over the coals, in fact. They appear to be heading in a direction all right. It just may not be a helpful one for the country.