Elections 2008 19 | ***Dave Does the Blog

Politicians are Politicians

For all that I recently lambasted Hillary for being unable to answer a straight (so to speak) question, it’s only fair to critique John McCain for similar obfuscation. I’ve had…

For all that I recently lambasted Hillary for being unable to answer a straight (so to speak) question, it’s only fair to critique John McCain for similar obfuscation. I’ve had a certain measure of admiration for McCain — or aspects of him — in the past. But the closer we get to 2008, the more delicately politic he’s become, the less of an ostensible maverick.

So in Iowa, he was asked whether he approved of federal aid-funded funded condoms in African nations to fight the spread of HIV. He could have said, “Yes.” He could have said, “No.” He could have nuanced either of those answers. Instead, he hemmed, hawed, turned to his handlers, and couldn’t come up with any answer.

Reporter: “Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?”
Mr. McCain: “Well I think it’s a combination. The guy I really respect on this is Dr. Coburn [Senator Tom Coburn, a physician and Republican from Oklahoma]. He believes – and I was just reading the thing he wrote– that you should do what you can to encourage abstinence where there is going to be sexual activity. Where that doesn’t succeed, than he thinks that we should employ contraceptives as well. But I agree with him that the first priority is on abstinence. I look to people like Dr. Coburn. I’m not very wise on it.”
(Mr. McCain turns to take a question on Iraq, but a moment later looks back to the reporter who asked him about AIDS.)
Mr. McCain: “I haven’t thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before. I don’t know if I would use taxpayers’ money for it.”
Q: “What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?”
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”
Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”
Q: “I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?”
Mr. McCain: (Laughs) “Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian [Jones, his press secretary], would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it.”
Q: “But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?”
Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) “Get me Coburn’s thing, ask [senior advisor John] Weaver to get me Coburn’s paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I’ve never gotten into these issues before.”

Brian Jones later confirmed that McCain “had a record of voting against using government money to finance the distribution of condoms.”

So one of two possibilities I see:

He didn’t want to offend social conservatives — his bete noir last time he ran — by supporting (gasp) contraception and condoms. By the same token, he didn’t want to lose his wavering moderate support by coming out directly against it. So he punted to “I’ll answer later, once my advisors do their job and tell me what I should say.”
He’s not fast enough to figure out a reasonable answer, based on his principles and policy beliefs, in a public setting, and, instead, had to turn to his advisors to tell him what his position actually was, or should be.

In either case, not exactly presidential material, nor in keeping with his “tough, maverick, do-what’s-right” self-promoted image.

(via Les)

Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas

Boy, you’re out of town then down sick for a couple of days and you miss all sorts of things. Like Ann Coulter demonstrating … her … Ann Couterishness. Speaking…

Boy, you’re out of town then down sick for a couple of days and you miss all sorts of things. Like Ann Coulter demonstrating … her … Ann Couterishness.

Speaking Friday at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C., Coulter closed her remarks with: “I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I—so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.”
Audience members appeared startled, then many clapped, and she opened the floor to questions. The event was carried on C-SPAN.

Hardly the worst thing Coulter’s ever let out of her mouth, but … jeez, what was CPAC thinking, inviting her to speak at their gathering … again? Evidently they were expecting just some Coulterish zaniness.

ACU, the event’s primary sponsor and CPAC strive to provide a platform and forum for a variety of differing views and personalities. ACU and CPAC do not condone or endorse every speaker or their comments at the conference. As such, ACU and CPAC leave it to our audience to determine whether comments are appropriate or not. “Ann Coulter is known for comments that can be both provocative and outrageous. That was certainly the case in her 2007 CPAC appearance and previous ones as well. But as a point of clarification,
let me make it clear that ACU and CPAC do not condone or endorse the use of hate speech,” said David A. Keene, ACU Chairman.

Then why do you invite someone who’s known for it? And, as importantly, will you invite her again?

Because if you don’t disapprove of using an anti-gay slur, and using it against a political oppontent just to be namecalling, then obviously you “condone and endorse” it. Not much wiggle room there. And if you invite her back again, we have to assume you support her “provocative and outrageous” discourse. C’mon, people — take a stand and let America know what you really believe.

Let the games begin

Sen. Barack Obama. Sen. Hillary Clinton. And, of course, Edwards, Dodd, Biden, Kucinich, Vilsack, and whomever else decides to poke their noses in. Let’s just hope the Dems can figure…

Sen. Barack Obama.

Sen. Hillary Clinton.

And, of course, Edwards, Dodd, Biden, Kucinich, Vilsack, and whomever else decides to poke their noses in.

Let’s just hope the Dems can figure out a solid candidate without (as usual) self-destructing. With Republicans like Brownback running, it’s almost a moral necessity …

(via Les)

Denver wins the Dems

I suppose I get a certain amount of “home town pride” in Denver being asked to host the Democratic Convention in August 2008, the main action to be held at…

I suppose I get a certain amount of “home town pride” in Denver being asked to host the Democratic Convention in August 2008, the main action to be held at the Pepsi Center. It doesn’t affect me a lot personally — I don’t plan on volunteering, and I rarely have to visit downtown (and will
make a special point not to).

I’m a lot more interested on who gets nominated than where.

Are we ready?

NPR has been running a two part series, yesterday and today, on whether the American public is “ready” to elect (a) an African-American, or (b) a woman to be President….

NPR has been running a two part series, yesterday and today, on whether the American public is “ready” to elect (a) an African-American, or (b) a woman to be President. Yesterday’s segment was on black electability, today’s touches on women.

Part of what was interesting about it was the “man on the street” commentary and polls. In polling, a significant majority said they’d be willing to vote for a black man for president, but many expressed skepticism that the public as a whole would be willing to (that skepticism goes significantly up among blacks polled).

I’m optimistic/idealistic enough to think that an African-American man could, indeed, be elected. I don’t labor under any illusions that racial prejudice in this country is dead, but I think for many, it’s become at least moribund, especially in the context of all the issues that go into selecting a president. For most, whether, say, Barak Obama is black will be, if not irrelevant, far down the list of things that will decide their vote — unless he (or any other black candidate) makes it an issue.

And there’s the tricky part. A black man can’t run successfully as a candidate for the blacks. That would be alienating to every other group out there, and blacks don’t have a majority to work with. That’s been the problem with so many past possible contenders (Sharpton and Jackson, most notably). The trickiest question is how a black candidate plays in black communities if he doesn’t reach out to them directly as their candidate. It’s been dealt with in other political campaigns, but the more
national an audience, the bigger the issue.

The resolution of the conundrum above — that Americans think they’d individually be willing to vote for a black man, but aren’t sure that their fellow Americans could — is that it depends on the candidate, both in terms of what issues they’re running on (like any other candidate) and how they play the race card (if at all). In a simplistic but fundamental way, if being an African-American becomes no more of a distinguisher than being a Texan, then we’re probably in fine shape.

But if a black man can be fairly easily perceived as being little or no different from a white man of the same political philosophy, the same cannot be said for a woman candidate. That’s not to say at all that a woman cannot be a good candidate, or an excellent office-holder; there’s no question in my mind about both of those propositions. But while people are becoming increasingly used to women in the workplace, and in government office, it seems unlikely that, any time soon, people will relate to male and female
candidates the same way, or perceive them as the same thing, because of, frankly, genetic hardwiring.

Gender relationships are a foundation for our psyche, our socialization, our actions in a million things large and small. The baggage and association of those relationships — regardless of the gender we are or that we seek after — affects how we relate to others of different genders in an intrinsic fashion, how we perceive them, what assumptions we make about them. I’m not necessarily talking about harassment and harmful prejudice here, but just a profound, gut-level, “here’s how I relate to women, here’s how
I relate to men” thing that’s so inculcated in our thoughts and emotions and our glands that it’s foolish to think it can ever been eliminated (“Men and women are the same!”) but only dealt with positively (“Men and women can both accomplish great things, possibly in different ways, though there’s a lot of individual variation as well”).

Racial humor is dangerous in many corners of our society, unless it is self-deprecating (i.e., about one’s own ethnic/racial group). But “the battle of the sexes,” though different in a lot of ways (the vast majority of them good) than ten, twenty, thirty, forty years ago, is still a subject for humor and discussion — and that’s because while the opportunity for race-based conflict and competition and interaction is relatively limited, nearly all of us deal with gender relations in our personal lives (negatively
or positively or both), and will for the foreseeable future. I, myself, am always going to, at some level, look at women differently from men, because so many of my personal relationships — family and friends and romantic — are different with women than with men.

Put another way, Barak Obama can work the election so that race is a trivial issue, unnoticed by many, or of tertiary importance to most. There’s no way that Hillary Clinton’s gender, however, can be so masked or ignored, only acknowledged and worked through. That’s not necessarily a good thing or a bad thing, it’s just a thing to be dealt with. But it makes, in a vacuum (e.g., without looking at any of the other political baggage or positioning either of them have) Clinton’s hypothetical quest for the White
House a bit more complicated than Obama’s.

And that said, I’d be a lot more likely to vote for either them than most of the potential GOP candidates I see coming down the pike.

Balance of Power

A 51-49 majority in the Senate is awfully fragile — especially when the other side has the VP to break a 50-50 tie. Which makes the possible incapacitation of Sen….

A 51-49 majority in the Senate is awfully fragile — especially when the other side has the VP to break a 50-50 tie.

Which makes the possible incapacitation of Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SoDak) a possible political blockbuster. South Dakota state law lets the Governor — a Republican — appoint a successor of his own choosing, meaning he could choose a fellow Republican, turning things into a 50-50 “tie” again.

I like to think that, were the shoe on the other foot, I’d be urging a Democratic Governor to replace a GOP Senator with another Republican. Regardless, this could be huge.

Will Hill Fill the Bill with Bill?

Yes, it’s Silly Season in American election news, as discussions suddenly veer off into “Who will run for President in 2008?” Or, in this case, who will be tapped as…

Yes, it’s Silly Season in American election news, as discussions suddenly veer off into “Who will run for President in 2008?” Or, in this case, who will be tapped as Vice President? And, more specifically, will Hillary Clinton (assuming she runs) ask hubby Bill to be her veep? And, can she, legally?

The latest speculation in Washington surrounding the presidential aspirations of Sen. Hillary Clinton concerns whether husband Bill could be her vice president. The issue, which recently came up during a chat on the Washington Post’s Web site, has drawn a variety of opinions on the constitutionality of the matter, the Post reports.
As the former president might put it, it may actually hinge on the meaning of the word “elected.” A Washington lawyer and political science professor argued in a 1999 article that Clinton could be vice president because he is only barred from being elected president a third time, not from serving as president if the occasion arose.
Kathleen Sullivan, director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center, agrees saying her reading of the 22nd Amendment does not preclude a Clinton-Clinton ticket.
But constitutional scholar Bruce Ackerman of Yale Law School warns the original intent of the amendment must be taken into account and should not be eroded by a narrow interpretation.

Great. Because what we really need are a bunch of law suits pre- and post-election regarding the VP choice. Not that I think Ackerman’s interepretation is a good one. The difference between “elected” and “serve” is semantically and legally large enough that it would be difficult to assume the amendment framers didn’t take it into consideration — or, even if they didn’t, that we should interpret things that narrowly.

And, yes, that could be a loophole that would let someone serve as de facto President forever (e.g., in 2008 politician X chooses George W. Bush as his VP running mate, then steps down after the election, lather, rinse, repeat), though it seems pretty far-fetched from a practical perspective.

Not that I expect Bill would actually take the VP job, even assuming Hillary offered it. Hillary could always use him as a “special envoy” explicitly or implicitly for whatever ad hoc role she (and he) wanted. And, from his perspective, who needs the stress? (I’ve yet to hear a former president long for the days of working in the White House, or speak enviously of the VP’s job, for that matter.)

Three weeks is still a long time …

I’m hoping (maybe — see below) that the Dems will take back at least one house of Congress, if not both, in the coming election. In my opinion, government works…

I’m hoping (maybe — see below) that the Dems will take back at least one house of Congress, if not both, in the coming election. In my opinion, government works better when there’s a mix of parties in charge, each serving as a brake on the other, and forcing a degree of bipartisanship if there’s to be any hope of anyone getting anything accomplished.

The various polls certainly seem to point to this happening — Electoral-vote.com suggests a 50-50 split in the Senate, and a 227-206 (2 ties) split in the House — but a lot can happen in three weeks, in the form of a late-October surprise (planned or not) and renewed vigorous scare-mongering,
and I wouldn’t count on anything until the polls close (and the conspiracy-minded out there will no doubt worry even after that happens, not without a measure of reason).

If control of Congress slips out of the GOP majority, though, plenty of conservatives are already lining up to decide Who’s Responsible.

Tax-cutters are calling evangelicals bullies. Christian conservatives say Republicans in Congress have let them down. Hawks say President Bush is bungling the war in Iraq. And many conservatives blame Representative Mark Foley’s sexual messages to teenage pages.
With polls showing Republican control of Congress in jeopardy, conservative leaders are pointing fingers at one other in an increasingly testy circle of blame for potential Republican losses this fall.
“It is one of those rare defeats that will have many fathers,” said David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, expressing the gloomy view of many conservatives about the outcome on Election Day. “And they will all be somebody else.”

In reality, it’s likely All of the Above, and still more. Certainly it’s not because the Dems have offered any sterling, inspirational leadership; if they take one or both houses of Congress, it will be because the electorate decided to recall the GOP (or, in the case of disaffected, grumpy Republican voters who stay home, because they decided just not to support the current batch), not because they really want the Dems in charge.

The question is, if the Dems take one or both chambers, is that a Good Thing or a Bad Thing? I tend to think it good, if only for the reasons noted above. The GOP one-party rule over the last six years — restrained only by occasional, timid foot-dragging and threatened fillibusters — has led to all sorts of bad policy, blank checks to the White House and to lobbyists, and limited discussion of ideas. It’s been partisanship run mad, at a time when, if we really are under the threat we’re told,
partisanship should be taking a back seat.

The problem is, this is a mid-term election, which means any results need to be weighed with the look ahead to 2008. If the Dems get a toehold back of power, can they keep it? Will anything that goes wrong from January 2007 on be blamed on the Dems (fairly or not) for obstructing the President and preventing needed decisive actions being taken? Will the Dems themselves show any sign of having leadership ideas that can actually resolve some of the problems we face (economically, militarily, diplomatically,
socially, etc.). And, if they do, will they be able to move them forward with only a slim majority (and against a White House that might finally get around to exercising veto power)?

If the Dems are going to win largely because they’re not the ones in power, what happens in two years when they are the ones in (at least partial) power?

It’s a calculated risk, but one neither the party nor the nation can afford not to take … if they can hold things together for another three weeks.

If a Democrat had said it …

… I’m sure we’d be hearing all sorts of pissing and moaning about “defeatism” and “being soft on terror” and all that. But since GOP honcho (and probably ’08 candidate)…

… I’m sure we’d be hearing all sorts of pissing and moaning about “defeatism” and “being soft on terror” and all that.

But since GOP honcho (and probably ’08 candidate) Bill Frist said it …

QALAT, Afghanistan — U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Monday that the Afghan war against Taliban guerrillas can never be won militarily and urged support for efforts to bring “people who call themselves Taliban” and their allies into the government.
The Tennessee Republican said he learned from briefings that Taliban fighters were too numerous and had too much popular support to be defeated on the battlefield.

Depressing, if true … but most noteworthy for who’s saying it, and what the official (non?)reaction will be.

Stop me if you’ve heard this one

From the anything-but-Left-Wing Cato Blog: Remember when conservatives wrote books with titles like Absolute Power: the Legacy of Corruption in the Clinton-Reno Justice Department? Those were the days. But here’s…

From the anything-but-Left-Wing Cato Blog:

Remember when conservatives wrote books with titles like Absolute Power: the Legacy of Corruption in the Clinton-Reno Justice Department? Those were the days. But here’s a new selection from the Conservative Book Club: Can She Be Stopped? Hillary Clinton Will Be the Next President of the United States Unless… What? I don’t know, but that’s the title of a new book from John Podhoretz of NRO and the New York Post.
What I do know is that if Hillary is the next president, she’ll be able to lay claim to a number of vast, extraconstitutional powers championed by right-wingers like, uh, John Podhoretz. Among those powers is the ”inherent executive authority” to wiretap at will and, perhaps, to seize American citizens on American soil and hold them without charges for the duration of the war on terror — in other words, forever.
The ’90s weren’t that long ago. And I remember a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth over misused FBI Files and suspicious IRS audits. Over the last four and a half years, many of the same wailers and gnashers have cheer-led the concentration of unreviewable power in the executive branch, as if George W. Bush would be the last president ever to wield that power. And now, lo and behold, there’s the mistress of Travelgate warming up in the on-deck circle. Join me in a bitter chuckle.

Payback is a bitch. And payback based on the precedent you set is even worse.

I’m not certain Hillary is such a shoo-in — but whoever gets in is going to reap both the benefits and the costs of this prsent administration. Hopefully the nation will get the Executive we need, not the one we deserve.

(via Les)

How disappointing

John McCain cozies up to Jerry Falwell. And that’s why it’s important to hold someone like Mr. McCain — who is still widely regarded as a moderate, in spite of…

John McCain cozies up to Jerry Falwell.

And that’s why it’s important to hold someone like Mr. McCain — who is still widely regarded as a moderate, in spite of his extremely conservative voting record — accountable when he cozies up to Mr. Falwell. Nobody thinks that Mr. McCain shares all of Mr. Falwell’s views. But when Mr. McCain said that the Christian right had a right to be part of the Republican Party, he was in effect saying that Mr. Falwell’s statements were within the realm of acceptable political discourse.
Just to be clear: this is a free country, and Mr. Falwell has a right to say what he thinks, even if his views include the belief that other people, by saying what they think, brought down God’s wrath on America. By the same token, any political party has a right to include Mr. Falwell and his supporters, just as any politician has a right to make a political alliance with Mr. Falwell.
But if you choose to make common cause with religious extremists, you are accepting some responsibility for their extremism. By welcoming Mr. Falwell and people like him as members of their party, Republicans are saying that it’s O.K. — not necessarily correct, but O.K. — to declare that 9/11 was America’s punishment for its tolerance of abortion and homosexuality, that Islam is a terrorist religion, and that Jews can’t go to heaven. And voters should judge the Republican Party accordingly.

Not that I thought he had much chance of getting the nomination anyway, but it seems to me McCain — assuming he’s angling to run again in ’08 — has managed to alienate a good chunk of his base without really standing to gain much ground with the religious right. A pity, that he felt that was the thing to do, whether it was done pragmatically or on principle.

I promise to do it unless I think I don’t have to

The new PATRIOT Act renewal included a smattering of new oversight and reporting provisions to make sure that the government doesn’t overstep its bounds in ensuring our national security. Except,…

The new PATRIOT Act renewal included a smattering of new oversight and reporting provisions to make sure that the government doesn’t overstep its bounds in ensuring our national security.

Except, of course, those provisions don’t mean a thing if the President decides they, themselves, endanger natoinal security.

The bill contained several oversight provisions intended to make sure the FBI did not abuse the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize papers. The provisions require Justice Department officials to keep closer track of how often the FBI uses the new powers and in what type of situations. Under the law, the administration would have to provide the information to Congress by certain dates.
Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it ”a piece of legislation that’s vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people.” But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a ”signing statement,” an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.
In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law’s requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ”impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive’s constitutional duties.”
Bush wrote: ”The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president’s constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information . . . “

Signing statements are not new with the present administration. There is always a tension between the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch between how much Congress can dictate how the Administration behaves, and other presidents have used signing statements to note where they disagree or consider certain provisions of dubious constitutional worth, or to clarify how they will (or won’t) apply the law.

But the Bush Administration seems bound and determined to use “national security” and the in-retrospect-vaguely-worded “war authority” resolution of a few years back to basically do whatever they want, so long as they can tie it to the War on Terror. Which, even if one granted them the high morals and civic dutifulness of angels, would be a dubious and dangerous practice.

Indeed, if you look at the signing statement, “national security” isn’t even the sole basis for withholding info. If it might cause diplomatic troubles (“you did what?!“) or impairs the deliberative process of the executive (“hmmm, that might be embarrassing if the public or Congress learned about that”), then those are designated as legitimate excuses to not do what the law calls for.

Swell.

I have been willing to cut the Administration a lot of slack over the years, largely because I reject knee-jerk reactions and jumping to conclusions. But Bush and his White House continue to be so ham-handed at setting up dangerous precedents that will come back to bite this country that, frankly, I’ve long since joined those looking forward to the end of this term and the opportunityt to vote someone into office who can work and play well (and constitutionally) with others.

Political maneuvers

There may be a certain amount of “wishful thinking” or “trial ballooning” in this story, which touts the likelihood that Dick Cheney will step down from being VP after the…

There may be a certain amount of “wishful thinking” or “trial ballooning” in this story, which touts the likelihood that Dick Cheney will step down from being VP after the mid-term elections. The idea is that growing rifts in between Cheney and Bush, and the Scooter Libby scandal, will make the post-election period the “right” time for Cheney to pull away from the White House and GOP, before he endangers their 2008 election chances.

Actually, that would potentially give Bush the chance to select his heir apparent, something that’s been sorely missing from the current White House configuration.

Whether it will happen is anyone’s guess, though. Cheney’s “retirement” has been speculated at for years. And, of course, if he really is the Evil Puppet-Master behind Bush (as half the conspiracy theories have it), one wouldn’t expect him to leave that opportune position.

At any rate, I hope the mid-term elections leave the GOP shaken up enough, at least, to prompt more profound political moves than a “graceful” Cheney exit.

An early (and thus probably contra-indicated) prediction

It is indeed possible to argue that some of the broader accusations regarding the Katrina disaster are poorly founded (that the hurricane was caused by the Bush refusal to sign…

It is indeed possible to argue that some of the broader accusations regarding the Katrina disaster are poorly founded (that the hurricane was caused by the Bush refusal to sign Kyoto, that the Bushies robbed the New Orleans levee projects to seek cheap oil in Iraq, that a Cat 4 hurricane can hit a major metropolis that sits below water and within three days everyone in the city can be sitting in government-paid-for comfort at Hyatt hotels around the country, sipping afternoon tea and playing Fantasy Football).

That said, even if every single politico, from Bush down to Joe-Bob Police Commissioner in NOLA, were as innocent as the driven snow and as diligent as Javert in having tried to avert the catastrophe and recover from it as quickly and intelligently and compassionately as possible, the very nature of what’s happened and the inevitable difficulty in recovering from it would have spelled political doom for all of them. The fact that the preparation and recovery effort have been filled with — to this day are filled with — not just the normal difficulties of getting past a cataclysm of this sort, but difficulties compounded by missteps, miscommunication, abdication of leadership, imposition of piss-poor leadership, and just general mismanagement from soup to nuts — aided and abetted by obstinacy, barbarism, and cruelty amongst some of the the citizenry of the NOLA area — makes that doom even more certain.

The fact is, I expect nearly every elected official in Louisiana to be shown the door in the next election, certainly in the executive branch, regardless of political party. And I expect the GOP to take it in the shorts in the midterm elections next year, quite possibly losing majority in status in the House. And I suspect that Bush’s ostensible successor, whomever that turns out to be, to lose pretty substantially to a Democratic challenger in ’08.

At the very least, 2008 is now even more the Dem’s election to lose — which, to be fair, they’ve shown admirable ability to do over the years. All the Dems have to do is show themselves more interested in solving the problems than in shrilly pointing fingers at their opponents or coming across as trying to exploit this politically. The fact is, the Katrina disaster is a huge political win for the opposition party, without the need to rub it in. It demonstrates just how ill-prepared the Bush Administration is, after four years of post-9/11 activities, to keep the US safe. I mean, substitute a dirty bomb or a bio-weapons release or some similar mass destructive event for a Cat 4 hurricane, and NOLA could have been any of a dozen different scenarios that the DoD and DHS and everyone else in DC should have been preparing for since September 12, 2001. That, even with advance warning, they’ve so bungled the recovery (and washing one’s hands and saying it’s a “local” matter is hardly convincing in this case), puts lie to the idea that we are significantly safer today than we were back then.

Today, let alone in 2008, the US populace is generally tired of the Iraq War, even if they agree(d) with it. The economic recovery is real, but hardly the booming ’90s (as unrealistic as that would be, or was), and is likely to get seriously dinged by Katrina and fuel prices. The “values” position is still up in the air, but the Right has gotten progressively more tarnished on the matter (lack of backing up words with deeds in Louisiana being a fine example of this). And the final pillar of Bush/GOP political success since 2001, the idea of being secure and protected by the Federal Government against terror attacks and their aftermath, has taken a catastrophic hit in the levees by Katrina.

Unless the Dems manage to completely blow it (not beyond the realm of possibility, sadly), I expect things to mightily change in Washington after the ’06 elections, and even moreso after ’08. And, frankly, I’m looking forward to it.

And, now that I’ve said it, watch it all not come true, dagnabbit.

A match made in the bitterly brilliant bowels of Hell itself

Not only is it highly unlikely to happen, but it would be an election that would make the partisan rhetoric in 2004 look like an elderly ladies’ church social. Still,…

Not only is it highly unlikely to happen, but it would be an election that would make the partisan rhetoric in 2004 look like an elderly ladies’ church social.

Still, there are so many reasons why Condi v. Hillary in ’08 would be a blast to see.

Root causes

Okay, now for some expanded, yet still uninformed, speculation. Why did Bush beat Kerry? And what does that mean in four years? Four big reasons seemed to be the focus…

Okay, now for some expanded, yet still uninformed, speculation.

Why did Bush beat Kerry? And what does that mean in four years? Four big reasons seemed to be the focus in exit polling and general chatter I heard:

The War on Terror: It’s probably simplistic to say that people just voted their fears, or that those same fears were fanned solely by the GOP in order to win the vote. 9-11 was, after all, just three years ago, and we’ve seen other al-Qa’eda (attributed) attacks since then, elsewhere, so a certain degree of concern over world terror is justified. And, for whatever reason, we’ve not had another attack on US soil, so there’s a certain credit given to Bush. And, beyond that, there was the sense that Bush was willing to send in the Marines, while Kerry would call INTERPOL.
So, then — what happens in four years?
If there hasn’t been a further Big Attack on US Soil by then, I think people will be (perhaps irrationally) willing to move on. The situation will seem to be handled and under control. Beyond which, the person to whom folks looked in trust (Bush) will be leaving the scene, and even his endorsement won’t ring quite the same way.
If there is another big attack, that might not be to the GOP’s benefit, either. Sure, there will be finger-pointing, but it will be an attack on Dubya’s watch (the second, depending on how you count ’em), and folks might decide a different approach, or a different protector, is called for.
In other words, the WoT will not be nearly the GOP vote-getter in 2008 that it was in 2004. Heck, probably not in 2006, either.
(This, as well as the rest, assumes the Dems run a competent candidate. ‘Nuff said.)
The War in Iraq: There was a lot of anger about Iraq, and, as even more than Bush supporter has noted, the President has not yet sold the American people on the war, just on the need to conclude it well. They trusted Bush to do this more than they trusted Kerry, who was expected (again, with some justification) to cut and run.
If things are still dicey in Iraq in four years, though, the GOP will be in serious trouble. Heck, make it two years, at the mid-term elections. And “dicey” in this case means ongoing major insurgency troubles regardless of whether US troops are there. At that point, the question of whether we should have gone in will be moot — it will be what we did once we were there, and the fault will lie fully on Bush, and, by extension, the GOP. (The Dems may, in the long run, be thankful that they and Kerry didn’t get stuck with this.)
If Iraq is going well in ’06 or ’08, it will bolster the GOP to some degree (especially if the Dems nominate a major war opponent). It will stand as proof that the Republicans are serious and effective in foreign policy. But it will not be nearly the electoral factor that it was this time around (foreign policy rarely drives elections — just as George Bush in 2000).
The Economy: Just as Clinton benefited from a bubble that wasn’t primarily his doing, Bush suffered from the bursting thereof which, along with other factors, led to a recession. While not as effective in doing something about it as might be desired (though, in reality, the tax cuts probably did help spur the recovery), he managed to duck most of the responsibility and fallout — largely by depending on the previous two factors to cover for it. After all, you expect hardship in wartime, right?
But if the recovery is too sickly, or too brief, the GOP will reap the punishment in ’06 and ’08. Indeed, they may have done Dems a favor this year by winning, if things go south again in the economy.
If, on the other hand, the recovery is strong and lasting, the GOP will benefit. But, then, so will everyone else, right? So it’s not exactly something anyone would want to root against.
The Culture War: As noted previously, there’s speculation that the populace is just plain ol’ getting more “conservative,” and this helped Bush this year (to get out the vote, if nothing else).
The question remains, is this just a hiccup? A last hurrah? Or perhaps it’s just folks holding up their hands for a moment to say “whoa” and catch their breath. Or maybe the pendulum really is swinging back.
What comes from that, though, is open to question. If the GOP pushes this too hard, then moderates who aren’t comfortable with gay marriage but who certainly don’t want to see Uncle Fred tossed in the clink because he lives with a “friend” are liable to defect in ’08, or even ’06. Folks who don’t like screwing around with the US Constitution are unlikely to go along with that sort of thing, either. And if the general population doesn’t want to see old traditions and mores tossed out by activist judges and left-wing loonies, they’re probably going to not be happy to see new rights that affect their family and friends tossed out (or not protected) by activist judges and right-wing loonies.
The general shift of the population back to the “right” may not be real or persistent. But if it is, it’s probably the most serious, long-term threat to the Dems and their constituency groups of any of these, since, after all, it would represent the will of the majority. I don’t think it’s a card the GOP can play too overtly, or too often, though; the populace may want to pull back a little to the right, but they don’t want to be pulled that direction too far, too fast, any more than they want to be pulled to the left too far or too fast. If the Dems are targeted and effective in their protestations and opposition, they will do a lot better than if they just reflexively resist anything that the GOP puts forward.
To that end, the biggest concern is probably that Bush & Co. will nominate all sorts of “awful” judges. The Dems have to be careful how they react here, and pick their battles carefully. Too much obstructionism makes them out as being solely partisan in their actions, and gives the GOP ammo for the next election. It’s dangerous to let bad judicial nominations through, but it may be necessary to let sub-optimal ones by in order to effectively stop the really bad ones.

There are a number of other factors that could come into play over the next four years.

The way the Bush Administration comports itself could play a small part of future electoral decisions — bullying, or arrogance, or continued refusal to let the buck stop there will not, in and of itself, affect an election, but it will leave a taint, a bad taste in the public’s mouth that could tip a balance.
It’s unlikely the environment will play a substantially greater part in folks’ decisions — those swayed by it already took that into account this time around — unless things get much more obviously worse in the next four years, the GOP is too overtly destructive of environmental laws, or there’s some sort of disaster that can be laid at their feet. But, again, for most voters the environment is a background issue, something that flavors the election decision, not something that decides it.
A lot of folks are worried about civil liberties (on the Left and on the Right), but it seems unlikely that anything short of a major homeland security effort that would have much of the GOP in Congress in rebellion would actually make it a significant factor over the next few elections. Things will get a bit worse, but I don’t expect to see bar codes on everyone’s forehead and Orwellian televiewers in everyone’s home by 2008.
Other foreign policy hot-spots could play a role. Iran and North Korea are obviously trouble spots. China is probably smart enough not to overplay its hand against the US just yet, but miscalculations could occur. Beyond Iraq and the WoT, if there are significant foreign policy blunders by Bush, it might have a small effect (though, again, foreign policy rarely decides elections.
A scandal of some sort is possible to tip the scales — there are any number of skeletons rattling around in the White House closets. The problem is, I think folks are getting tired of the scandal shtick, largely because it’s been used indiscriminately as a club by both parties, rarely with the significance matching the sound and fury that accompanied it. It’s all too likely, though, that a major scandal in the Bush administration wouldn’t seriously hurt the GOP in ’06 or ’08, both because of their control of Congress (which would be expected to take the lead in any sort of inquiry) and because the population will attribute it more to being a political attack than a substantive indictment, all things being equal.

Bottom line, some of the bigger items that Bush was able to leverage this time around — Iraq, and the War on Terror — are unlikely to be significant benefits in 2008, but hold the risk of being significant dangers (assuming the Dems don’t self-destruct). The economy could affect the next presidential election in either direction, depending on where it is as of July 2008 (to that end, it might be best of the Dems to not win back Congress in ’06). The culture war aspect may be the biggest problem for the Dems and the Left to overcome, assuming it’s real, but that also assumes that GOP arrogance doesn’t create a backlash toward the center.

Of course, there may be a completely new factor in the next two years, and four, that nobody can predict now. After all, nobody in 2000 would have predicted either of the first two as major election-deciders.

It should be an interesting (cue Chinese proverb) next few months, seeing which way things are starting to go.

UPDATE: Doyce has his election post mortem. Good stuff — and, if what he says is true, probably not his “last political post for awhile,” regardless of the title.

The worst part …

… of the likely Bush victory over Kerry is the combination of triumphalist high-fives and neener-neeners from winners, and head-exploding wails of despair and loathing from the losers. Assuming the…

… of the likely Bush victory over Kerry is the combination of triumphalist high-fives and neener-neeners from winners, and head-exploding wails of despair and loathing from the losers.

Assuming the victory goes that way (’cause I’m not going to hold these thoughts until it’s all settled) …

To the winners — yes, you squeaked by. Be grateful, and be gracious. Consider how things felt when the exit polls were singing a different tune. You have the majority, but it’s not a huge one, and it can easily turn around in two years. Don’t alienate your support by arrogance. And don’t dismiss opposition to Bush’s policies as mere fringe ravings; 55MM votes say you’re wrong.

To the losers — try and be just a scosh gracious, too. Take a deep breath. Acknowledge that the majority (pretty clearly, this time, though it was still close) disagreed with you, and that you need to do a better job in selling your viewpoints next time around. Screaming that the 58MM or so folks who voted for Bush were idiots, dupes, or evil homophobic crypto-fascist theocratic thugs, is neither helpful nor likely to decrease their number. Threatening to move elsewhere is only going to earn you a ticket, with their gratitude.

If you want to sway those folks, you need to change your tactics. Instead of simply throwing rhetorical daggers at Bush for being a stupid-poopy-head, or an evil mastermind, or, paradoxically, both, try one or two or even three of the following:

Attack the policies, not the person. Better yet, suggest policies that demonstrably might work better, as alternatives, and that have something to recommend them other than that they aren’t what Bush is doing. The fact is, there were plenty of people who voted for Bush who weren’t terribly happy with some of the things he’s done, but who didn’t see reasonable alternatives. Given a perceived choice between slogging things out in Iraq and just abandoning the whole business (whether or not that perception was fair), they chose the slogging one. Give them a better course, and they’ll likely take it, and the people who tout it. There are plenty of folks who back the President on Iraq, but don’t care for his social policies. Push them into an either-or and you may lose (in fact, you did). Give them something more nuanced to support, drum up opposition to particular policies that don’t require them to change their mind on everything, and you may be more successful.
Next election, put forward an alternative candidate that you can actually support, fergoshsakes, not someone who happens not to be Bush (or whomever the GOP go with next time). There was a lot of “Bush is eeeevil!” being tossed about, but not a lot of “Kerry, Kerry, he’s our man …” that didn’t veer off into “… because he’s not Bush.”
Try not to sound, as a movement, like absolute idiots and anarcho-communist radicals who want to tear down the country and spit on the flag. That doesn’t describe most of the opposition to Bush, but it certainly describes an overly-vocal percentage of it, and they do nothing for the cause but discredit the majority of those on the Left who aren’t that daft. Disinvite folks like ANSWER from the rallies, and distance yourself from that sort of crap. Yes, they stir up passions and shout loudest at demonstrations. They also are (rightfully) scary to the majority in the population in the country, which only pushes that majority away from you. (And, yes, there are vocal absolute idiots and radicals on the other end of the spectrum, too, but either the populace didn’t consider them as scary, or else they didn’t conflate Bush and the GOP with them, rightly or wrongly. See if you can figure out why.)

The rhetoric needs to be revisited, too. The Tax Cuts For The Rich / Halliburton / Neocon Conspiracy / Bible-Thumper / Draft Dodger bits didn’t work. They’re tired. People — the people you want to change the minds of, remember? — aren’t going to listen to them (unless they already believe them). Keeping them up just makes you sound shrill and impotent and stuck in the past, whether they’re accurate or not. Attack what’s going on now, especially if you have some decent alternatives, rather than rant about the Evil Rovian Cabal behind it. People will be a lot more likely to be on your side if you let them connect the last dots.

Of course, since Bush only has a single term left (huzzah), the strategy needs to be on both 2006 (the congressional races) and 2008 (the next presidential race), factoring Bush out of things except as a (secondary) counter-example. Maybe that will actually make US political rhetoric and activism stop being a perpetual referendum on Bush’s personality (which, it seems, the majority of the people like) and more one on the issues. One can but hope.

And hope I do. Because, frankly, there aren’t lot of good candidates waiting in the wings next time out for the GOP, certainly not with the folksy charm that Bush exudes (whether you consider it a ploy or evidence of his stupidity). Bill Owens is probably closest, and he comes across as a lot more moderate than Bush — but the best bet that the Dems have next time out is that the conservatives will overplay their hand and go for someone who’s more firmly hard-line and less friendly. That might actually turn things around, especially if the Dems can nominate someone that they’re exited about per se, rather than as an alternative.

Stay tuned …

UPDATE: Josh Claybourn has some interesting analysis that may invalidate some of the above. He sees the Bush win as part of the ongoing “culture wars” — which is tied into the anti-gay marriage proposition wins. That indicates that policy-related stuff — economy, war, homeland security — may be less influential on ongoing elections than more social issues — abortion, religion, gay rights, etc. That’s worrisome, to me — but is it a changing tide or a “last surge”? How this will play into the Blue-vs-Red stuff, the growing immigrant population, etc., is anyone’s guess. But it’s indicative that the Dems may run into problems with how to draw on some of their core interest groups on topics like abortion and not alienate what might be a growing move of the center.

UPDATE: Yeah, a big turn-out. But it didn’t (vs. conventional wisdom) all go Dem. The “The Most Important Election Of Our Lifetime” energized both sides (see previous update).

And the youth vote doesn’t seem to have been abnormally high, either, which is disappointing (actually looks to be the same percentage as 2000, around 15-20%). Did the rhetorical excess make them roll their eyes? Are the youth a lot more conservative, culturally, than the movies and TV would have us believe?

UPDATE: Interesting. The Colorado House and Senate look to have gone Dem, despite a GOP governor and giving the president vote to Bush, and despite an overall registration deficit for the Dems. That may, in turn, hurt Owens for 2008.

UPDATE: Hopefully the response from the Dems will be more productive than some of the ones documented here. Though, “Don’t mourn, organize,” seems like a good idea. Just watch who you include in your organization, and pay closer attention to what your mission statement is. To wit, it’s to win, to get more people to vote for you, not to just try and make the other guy lose.

UPDATE: Since it didn’t ping through, here‘s a nicely complementary mention from Anne …