More, Not Less, Divided

John Fortier takes a look at the makeup of the new House of Representatives and bucks the forming conventional wisdom that the election was a move to the center, politically. It is an interesting take.

The Democratic victory on November 7th was broad. It swept in many Democrats of different stripes across the country including some who won in Republican districts and who are socially conservative on issues like guns, abortion, and gay marriage. There were also victories by Democratic military veterans, who projected a more hawkish outlook than much of their party in Congress. But all in all, these social conservatives and veterans make up a minority of new members, at most one third of Democrats who took Republican House seats.

On the other side of the ledger, the ranks of Republican House moderates were severely thinned. Let's assume that there are no changes in the leaders in the several outstanding House races and that Democrats end up with a gain of twenty-nine seats. Among the House seats that changed hands, nine out of the twenty most liberal House Republicans lost, using the rankings of political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal (voteview.com). And nineteen seats that changed hands had been held by Republicans in the more liberal half of their caucus.

Or look at it a different way. Before Tuesday's elections there were eighteen House Republicans who represented districts that John Kerry had won in 2004. Ten of those eighteen lost.

Fortier also notes that there are very sharply defined regional difference now with the Northeast basically lost to the Republicans while the South is almost off limits to Democrats. His take is that the partisan lines will be even worse in the House than they have been up until now. There's something to look forward to, isn't it?

Dense Deer Attacks Dense Deer

Apparently, the deer who live in the vicinity of the town of Holland, Wisconsin are not the sharpest tools in the shed. One particularly dense (in the lack of intelligence sense) buck took it upon himself to attack another buck. Now while this is a frequent occurrence during mating season when the antlers the deer grows appear to sap all the brains out of their heads, but in this case it was even less bright than usual. Because the other deer was dense in the physical sense.

It was one of those ceramic lawn ornaments.

OOSTBURG, Wis. - A ceramic deer came out the loser when attacked by the real thing. Ruth Hesselink of the town of Holland reported that the deer replica in her yard was destroyed in the attack that happened Sunday about 6:45 p.m., according to Capt. Dave Adams of the Sheboygan County Sheriff's Department.

Hesselink told authorities a buck took on its ceramic counterpart.

A deputy who went to the scene found "obvious track marks" that supported Hesselink's account, Adams said Monday.

Among the damage, the head of the ceramic deer was knocked off.

Personally, I would never want one of these lawn ornaments, but not out of fear of dense deer going medieval on it. Rather, I have read numerous stories over the years of these statues drawing the occasional random bullet from dense hunters. Stick with gnomes, there's no open season on them. Although with all those annoying Tavelocity commercials, it may not be long before some people begin hunting them, too.

Iran And Al Qaeda

The Telegraph carries a couple of stories today about reports that Iran is trying to co-opt al Qaeda by grooming the next generation of leaders for the terror group. They say that Western intelligence agencies are very, very nervous about these developments.

Western intelligence officials now believe that Iran is trying to cultivate a new generation of al-Qa'eda leaders who will be prepared to work closely with Teheran when they eventually take control.

Recent intelligence reports from Iran suggest the Iranians are particularly keen to promote Saif-al-Adel, a notorious al-Qa'eda operative who is wanted in the United States for his alleged role in training several of the September 11 hijackers.

Al-Adel, 46, a former colonel in Egypt's special forces who joined al-Qa'eda after fighting with the Mujahideen against Soviet forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s, was named in the FBI's list of 22 most wanted terrorists that was issued after the September 11 attacks.

He is also alleged to have been involved in the deaths of 18 US soldiers in Somalia in 1993 and the truck bomb attacks on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.

Al-Adel has, technically, been living under house arrest in Teheran since fleeing to Iran in late 2001 with hundreds of other al-Qa'eda fighters following the US-led coalition's invasion of Afghanistan.

For the past five years he has been living in a Revolutionary Guards guest house in Teheran together with Saad and Mohammed bin Laden, two of the al-Qa'eda leader's sons.

Until 2003, al-Adel acted as bin Laden's security chief and since his arrival in Iran he is understood to have struck up a close personal relationship with several prominent Revolutionary Guards commanders.

The Iranians are now exerting pressure on al-Qa'eda's leadership to make al-Adel the organisation's number three which, given bin Laden's poor state of health, would effectively make him number two. This would put him in a strong position to take control of the entire al-Qa'eda network in the event of Zawahiri being killed or being unable to continue running the group.

"This is an important power play by the Iranians and the prospect of al-Qa'eda and Iran forging a close alliance is truly terrifying," said a senior Western intelligence official. "They have had their differences in the past, but with the survival of both Iran and al-Qa'eda now at stake they realise it is in both their interests to have closer ties."

The trial balloons that have been popping up literally everywhere in the past few weeks indicate that the Baker Commission is planning on recommending that the US negotiate with Iran and Syria. Last night, I linked a report by Michael Totten that indicates there is a very strong possibility that Syria and Iran have designs on toppling the Lebanese government. Now comes these reports. Why are we considering negotiating with these nations?

One can only hope that there is a deep game being played here to try to force the other nations in the Middle East into a more active role in helping to solve the regional troubles. Unfortunately, I don't really believe that the same old group of inside operatives would come up with anything new and novel.

The Same Old Operatives

Michael Kinsley has a column in the Washington Post that provides a pretty hard slam at the use of a commission to look at Iraq. He points out that commissions have generally been used in the past to recommend changes to social policies that have become too hot for politicians to handle. This new and novel approach to foreign affairs, however, is staffed by the same old group of political operatives and insiders that keep popping up. The few "fresh" faces are very familiar names. None of these people were voted into office, however.

If I told you that there was something in Washington called the Baker commission but didn't tell you what it was about, you still could probably name many of its members. If you are of a certain age, you might wonder, "Jim or Howard?" And you might have a quibble or two.

Where is Dick Holbrooke? Does Sandra Day O'Connor's new availability mean that Madeleine Albright is out of luck from now on? Are they sure that Larry Eagleburger is still alive? But Vernon Jordan is there, along with Ed Meese and Alan Simpson and Lee Hamilton. This is one torch that has not been passed to a new generation, although former Virginia senator and presidential son-in-law Charles Robb (age 67) is a fresh face in the pool of Washington Wise Men. Welcome, Chuck.

The Baker commission — that's James Baker, of course — was appointed by Congress to look into the situation in Iraq. It is expected to report early next month, and it is duly bouncing around and staffing up and holding hearings and all the things that prestigious commissions do.

Ordinarily a commission such as this has two possible purposes: action or inaction. Sometimes a problem is referred to a prestigious commission so that the commission can recommend doing things that everybody knows must be done but that nobody has the nerve to propose — at least nobody who has to run for office. The commission can ram this policy down the politicians' allegedly unwilling throats. If it is bipartisan — and what fun is a commission that isn't bipartisan? — the commission also protects both parties against a stab in the back by the other. This is how Social Security was reformed and saved the last time, when the chairman of the commission was Alan Greenspan, and undoubtedly this is how it will be reformed and saved again. Hey, Greenspan's available again. Come to think of it, why isn't he on this one? He is no expert on Iraq — but neither is Leon Panetta, another recent initiate into the Pantheon.

Welcome, Leon.

On the other hand, sometimes a problem is referred to a commission simply to get it off the table. Action is widely perceived as necessary, and the creation of a commission can be made to look like action.

Kinsley calls this one correctly, I think. The trial balloons that are being leaked all over the place right now are the stuff of venerable and experienced political operatives. The stuff of the same old "realism" that produced the situation that we are in today. Said "realism" also produced the last bad situation and the one before that , and on and on.

But not one member of this commission was voted for by the American people to decide foreign affairs for this nation. Not one was entrusted by the voters with decision-making power.

That is what everyone should be angry about at this point.