Sleeves up (a rambling rant)
Nov. 15th, 2006 09:00 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumIt's been an incredible week. There's lots of talk about the changes which are coming, and what needs to be done to consolidate the "win". We won, make no bones about it. The Right is spinning this, as the narrative has been for years, that the turning out of the guys who are leaving The Hill (I'd say leaving Washington, but there are think tanks, and lobbying firms more than willing to snap them up, those turned out of office are for the former, and the staffers for the latter; unless they parlay their rolodex into a job on the staff of one of those who remains).
There's an interesting breakdown of the changes, with maps over at <http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/14/3221/7147>Kos.
Even if you don't go look at them (and they do some interesting breakdowns of where the gains were, but that doesn't address the question of why) the question still remains, was this a big win, or just an average one? A lot of the spin has been, "this was to be expected, after all every president loses in the sixth year." Except they don't. Clinton didn't (that was four years after the Gingrich crowd came in). Amidst allt the crap going on, he gained seats in his second mid-term election.
"Previous swings have been bigger, so this wasn't about anything but Iraq," which means, when one reads between the lines, "No one was voting for Democrats, hell they weren't even voting against Republicans, they were voting against Bush." The really brassy ones even go on to say that "conservatism" was the real winner; arguing that the guys who won, are really republican-lite, and the Bush "isn't a real conservative," (the last was a gimme. It's been waitig in the wings. One of the repeated mantras of those who believe in conservatism is that it, like Chesterton's christianity, hasn't been tried and found wanting, it's been and found difficult, so people come into office, and then; when they see how hard it is (after all, one has to be willing to starve government by moving the tax burden to the middle, releasing the power of the wealthy [by making them richer, to they can rain down largesse on the rest of us; a golden shower which will lift all boats]. Deficits are good; somehow, because they move money from poor working schlubs, who would merely spend it on things like food, housing, education and other things of no real benefit to the economy, and gift it to large corporations, who [by virtue of the inherent decency of businessmen, and the philanthropic princple which drives them; and the market] allow the invible hand to make everyone rich, with a chicken in every pot, two cars in every garage and employment; with a livig wage for all, oh yeah, and a pony), they get weak-kneed and bail out on the hard choices.
Nope, conservtism never fails it is merely failed.
Right.
It's all bullshit. They lost. I'll argue they lost bigger than even they think. Why? Gerrymander. The science of shaping districts, to favor the incumbent, and make no race truly competitive has gotten very good. Not only are those who do it able to shape them to fit the voter rolls, but the actual habits of those who truly vote (that is one of the spin-points, the myth of the suddenly motivated; who are, we are told, being single issue voters, not looking at the real issues, but only reacting with disgust to the war. That undercuts the, "they only voted for conservative Dems meme, but who cares about a little consitency when trying to salvage a tattered scrap of pride from the dustbin of history?)
With all of that on their side (the fruits of the Delay/Rove effort to establish a "Permanent Republican Majority) they still got whomped.
The vaunted single issue/conservative Dems who beat them. Guys like Ford in Tennesee... what he lost? Never mind.
Or Webb, in Virginia... oh, he has a lot to say about wage inequality, and arrogation/abuse of power by the Executive, and the loss of civil rights in the War Against Some Terrorists? Oh. Never mind.
Because that pattern repeats itself. The Republican-lite candidates lost. The populist candidates won. The war was an issue. So to were torture, and Padilla, and habeas, and wiretapping (and Pelosi deserves a lot of credit, she, and Reid, kept the weak-sisters, and the Liebermice, from listening to the talking heads (the Hannities, et al.) who were so kind as to tell them what they needed to do; to win [why does anyone listen to a Limbaugh, when he says he's trying to "help" the Democrats? It's not as if Coulter, Savage, Reagan, and their ilk believe in a loyal opposition. The fact that I think the Bush policies are ill-thought, and wrong makes me, veteran of the war they love, and all, a traitor. Those are not people one can reason with, and they certainly aren't the people you take strategy advice from. They tell their followers to beat you up, even to kill you, and you listen to them...? Sorry, I'll return to the ramble I was supposed to be on], but Pelosi kept them from caving, and showing some spine made no small amount of difference. Who want's to vote for someone who won't stick it to the guy you don't like?).
We need to remind them of that. They need to be told, again (and again, as needs be) what matters, why it matters, and what we want them to do about it. We can't wait until the ne class is seated. We have a month, and a bit, to tell the returned why they were returned. We have to rally the freshman, so they can avoid being pulled into business as usual.
This crop (like the Gingrich crop) are here because they believe in something. That belief needs to be nurtured. We put them there, they need to remember that, but so do we. Our system of gov't can work, and work well, but it takes an informed, and involved populace.
The elections are over, the race ain't.
There's an interesting breakdown of the changes, with maps over at <http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/14/3221/7147>Kos.
Even if you don't go look at them (and they do some interesting breakdowns of where the gains were, but that doesn't address the question of why) the question still remains, was this a big win, or just an average one? A lot of the spin has been, "this was to be expected, after all every president loses in the sixth year." Except they don't. Clinton didn't (that was four years after the Gingrich crowd came in). Amidst allt the crap going on, he gained seats in his second mid-term election.
"Previous swings have been bigger, so this wasn't about anything but Iraq," which means, when one reads between the lines, "No one was voting for Democrats, hell they weren't even voting against Republicans, they were voting against Bush." The really brassy ones even go on to say that "conservatism" was the real winner; arguing that the guys who won, are really republican-lite, and the Bush "isn't a real conservative," (the last was a gimme. It's been waitig in the wings. One of the repeated mantras of those who believe in conservatism is that it, like Chesterton's christianity, hasn't been tried and found wanting, it's been and found difficult, so people come into office, and then; when they see how hard it is (after all, one has to be willing to starve government by moving the tax burden to the middle, releasing the power of the wealthy [by making them richer, to they can rain down largesse on the rest of us; a golden shower which will lift all boats]. Deficits are good; somehow, because they move money from poor working schlubs, who would merely spend it on things like food, housing, education and other things of no real benefit to the economy, and gift it to large corporations, who [by virtue of the inherent decency of businessmen, and the philanthropic princple which drives them; and the market] allow the invible hand to make everyone rich, with a chicken in every pot, two cars in every garage and employment; with a livig wage for all, oh yeah, and a pony), they get weak-kneed and bail out on the hard choices.
Nope, conservtism never fails it is merely failed.
Right.
It's all bullshit. They lost. I'll argue they lost bigger than even they think. Why? Gerrymander. The science of shaping districts, to favor the incumbent, and make no race truly competitive has gotten very good. Not only are those who do it able to shape them to fit the voter rolls, but the actual habits of those who truly vote (that is one of the spin-points, the myth of the suddenly motivated; who are, we are told, being single issue voters, not looking at the real issues, but only reacting with disgust to the war. That undercuts the, "they only voted for conservative Dems meme, but who cares about a little consitency when trying to salvage a tattered scrap of pride from the dustbin of history?)
With all of that on their side (the fruits of the Delay/Rove effort to establish a "Permanent Republican Majority) they still got whomped.
The vaunted single issue/conservative Dems who beat them. Guys like Ford in Tennesee... what he lost? Never mind.
Or Webb, in Virginia... oh, he has a lot to say about wage inequality, and arrogation/abuse of power by the Executive, and the loss of civil rights in the War Against Some Terrorists? Oh. Never mind.
Because that pattern repeats itself. The Republican-lite candidates lost. The populist candidates won. The war was an issue. So to were torture, and Padilla, and habeas, and wiretapping (and Pelosi deserves a lot of credit, she, and Reid, kept the weak-sisters, and the Liebermice, from listening to the talking heads (the Hannities, et al.) who were so kind as to tell them what they needed to do; to win [why does anyone listen to a Limbaugh, when he says he's trying to "help" the Democrats? It's not as if Coulter, Savage, Reagan, and their ilk believe in a loyal opposition. The fact that I think the Bush policies are ill-thought, and wrong makes me, veteran of the war they love, and all, a traitor. Those are not people one can reason with, and they certainly aren't the people you take strategy advice from. They tell their followers to beat you up, even to kill you, and you listen to them...? Sorry, I'll return to the ramble I was supposed to be on], but Pelosi kept them from caving, and showing some spine made no small amount of difference. Who want's to vote for someone who won't stick it to the guy you don't like?).
We need to remind them of that. They need to be told, again (and again, as needs be) what matters, why it matters, and what we want them to do about it. We can't wait until the ne class is seated. We have a month, and a bit, to tell the returned why they were returned. We have to rally the freshman, so they can avoid being pulled into business as usual.
This crop (like the Gingrich crop) are here because they believe in something. That belief needs to be nurtured. We put them there, they need to remember that, but so do we. Our system of gov't can work, and work well, but it takes an informed, and involved populace.
The elections are over, the race ain't.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-11-15 05:19 pm (UTC)At least some in the press are finally starting to acknowledge that Rove isn't the political genius they've been letting him pretend to be:
The Unbelievable Karl Rove (Washington Post)
How did Bush's architect get his specs so wrong?
no subject
Date: 2006-11-15 09:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-15 10:10 pm (UTC)1: The Dems win.
2: The Fiasco that is Iraq is resolved, and the blame for it falls on them; even though he admits it's not there fault.
3: The Republicans sweep back into office, leaving the Dems in obsurity for the foreseeable future.
I happen to think this a deplorable thing to want, because Jerry, de facto, admitted that his party screwed the pooch, and he wants them to be allowed to duck being held to account for it.
But I can see a clever operative, one with the ability to plan ahead (in a way I don't think Rove has) actually trying to finesse this.
I just don't think it's what happened, though I can see someone, in two-four-six years, trying to bring the middle bit to pass, so as to try repeating (for a third time) the formation of a "Permanent Republican Majority," or whatever you want to call One Party Rule and the death of the Republic, because power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.
TK