Obviously, Jeff and most of the PW community (trolls excepted) would have preferred that fewer voters had decided to cheer up senior members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Islamic Jihad and Hamas—particularly when Hamas coincidentally decides to call for an attack on American targets the next day. But the midterm election results should be viewed in perspective.
The Washington Post –like most of the media—is portraying the outcome as “a sharp rebuke of President Bush and the Iraq war.” There is undoubtedly some truth in that. On the other hand, since World War II, the average loss for a second-term presidency in its sixth year has been six Senate seats and 29 House seats (35 if you go back to 1938). Indeed, when the president’s approval rating is below 50 percent, the average midterm seat loss is 38 House seats. Viewed in the context of history, a probable loss of 29 House seats and six Senate seats is either not that sharp a rebuke or a sign of the extent to which the electorate still mistrusts the Democrats on the major issues of our time.
Moreover, the Democrats gained seats with conservative candidates like Brad Ellsworth, Joe Donnelly and Heath Shuler. Jim Webb—if he survives a recount—sounds more like a paleocon than a Leftist. (Even the WaPo piece linked above acknowledges as much.) The Democrats who led with an antiwar message, like Ned Lamont and Tammy Duckworth, lost. Christy Hardin Smith is full of bile over bipartisan noises coming from DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel, while Rush Limbaugh is grumbling over President Bush’s similar overtures in today’s presser. Both are overlooking the lesson of history that when a President suffers a domestic setback—particularly in a second-term, the tendency is toward even more aggressive efforts in foreign policy.
As is often the case, we can turn to the words of great Americans who have come before us for inspiration moving forward:
It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat. —Teddy Roosevelt
And even more to the point:
It’s easy to grin
When your ship comes in
And you’ve got the stock market beat.
But the man worthwhile,
Is the man who can smile
When his shorts are too tight in the seat.
— Judge Elihu Smails
Right on, Karl.
I hope you’re right. I’m glad some here are upbeat.
I agree. I think you really have to view this election as a huge setback for the Democrats.
At least we’re spared the disgusting ordeal of having the Dems–the party of bringing immigrants, felons and the dearly departed to the polls–squawk about election fraud this time.
And this time we won’t have to put up with their public soul-searching, after which they conclude with a heavy sigh that the voters are idiots for not voting for them.
Instead, they may prove that the voters were idiots for voting for them.
What’s the over-under on how long before the Kos Kidz are telling George Allen to sit down and shut up, the E-voting is really really accurate and there’s no reason to ask for a recount?
Good sentiments, Karl.
Historical perspective is a comfort, usually, and for me it is because I can think to myself, “…and they survived that!”
Hamas coincidentally decides to call for an attack on American targets the next day.
Did Israel “coincidentally decide” to lob a few artillery shells into a Palestinian apartment building and slaughter 19 civilianss?
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/785473.html
No.
Fuck you, monky, you worthless piece of shit.
Hamas wants to kill us now? Damn. And here I was thinking that pulling the lever for a bunch of left wing surrender monkeys would make them love us.
Oh, and speaking of monkey asses, didja ever wonder why it is that the Israelis have only ever killed civilians or kept political prisoners in their jails? They never kill an unlawful combatant, never catch an actual murderer/bomb chucker/gunman. It’s only innocent people that get captured and killed. You really have to wonder about their judgment, if they’re simply evil to the core, or if it’s just that Jews have really, really, really consistently bad luck.
Hey, dude – Hamass sez there ARE no civilians in Israel. Well guess what? That means there ain’t no civs in Gaza, either.
Enjoy.
I actually think it was intentional, nawoods. Surely bolstered by their renewed confidence in the Democrat Plan for a Plan, Israel decided outright unprovoked mass homicide was something cool to do to celebrate.
Because a strong national defense isn’t anywhere near as fun as inciting the sixty million psychopaths next door.
Okay, ten million then.
Fuck off, monkyspunk. You are truly reprehensible, conscience-less, intractable infestation upon the race of humanity.
Which justifies calling for an attack on American targets because…?
BTW, monky, that’s a rhetorical question. I can already think of at least two of the insane answers you might have.
Maybe so, 6gun.
But considering there are only 4 million Palestinians.
An attack that kills 18 of them is the equivalent of an attack on America that kills 1350 civilians…
…practically a 9/11.
How should they respond?
By strapping up a teenage girl with TNT and setting her off in a bus load of Israelis, obviously.
The way Mexico would if 250 million Americans were insane murderous death cultists chucking rockets at them on a daily basis. As harshly as possible.
Christy Hardin Smith, not Jane Hamsher.
Hamsher’s probably ruined a half-dozen keyboards by dripping foam on them, by now.
Not to mention trying to type with clenched fists.
Aaah, I see.
You guys think collective punishment is still going to fly post-election?
Hello permanent minority…
Monky: Don’t give yourself airs; you are no intellectual. But you’re kind of entertaining. Kind of.
I realize this is futile, since monkyboy has shown no indication of sentient thought, let alone imagination, but I want him to try to imagine two scenarios:
One in which Israel, and the US agrees to stay out of it, decides it is tired of fighting and throws all its arms into the sea, unilaterally, without qualification…
…and another where the Palestinians do the same. Just spontaneously quit fighting, throw away there weapons, and surrender completely.
What do you think the next event would be in each of those instances, monkyboy?
Slart:
Noted and corrected. Thanks.
monky:
To not realize that this is exactly what you just advocated in this thread vis Hamas attacks on American targets is what makes you a Telephone Pole.
Everyone else:
Note the monky also had a knee-jerk reaction to criticism of Sheik Taj al-Din al-Hilaly’s Ramadan sermon comparing immodestly-dressed women to uncovered meat. Apparently, criticizing Islamic extremism sets off the monky. Shocking!
Great post, Karl.
Well it didn’t take long for at least one of the things that I talked about here to come to pass.
Beyond all of the obvious and not so obvious,challenges ahead Pelosi, Rahm et al are know that their victories were, in large measure, processed by moderate to mildly conservative candidates. The Kos/Firedoglake/DU screechers are in for a shock. The mainstream of the party, in their darkest hearts, know full well that the majority of Americans are not going to accept the far left talking points as policy. It’s what made Moveon’s previous proclamations of “party ownership” so laughable.
Unfortunatly for Pelosi and Rahm, they also have to deal with the old line liberals like Waxman and Conyers. With the loud, nueanced challenged bellowing of the leftards, the temptation is going to be to pursue an aggressive investigation of all things Republican, up to and including Impeachment, in a misguided attempt to drive a stake into the 2008 Republican presidential asperations. This, of course, would dash any chances of bi-partisan work on, well, anything.
It is rather amusing to consider the juvenile chest thuimping that has been coming from the likes of billo reilly and others. They are so drunk with “their” perceived victory that they can’t see the fight that’s coming within their own party. The best part is that this is just one of the challenges that our lefty friends face.
I suspect the the hardcore leftards, for the most part, will be just as boiling as Smith is in the comimg months as their naive little concepts of the “liberal revolution” go crashing into the the blinding reality of…<b>bi-partisan governing./b>
The resulting collective howling aneurysms should be most entertaining.
Killing civilians isn’t going to fly with the new masters, BJ.
Unless your guys change their tactics, the Dems. will certainly change the strategy…
Alright, now that we got that election thing out of the way, time to talk and do something about a problem that really matters.
The increasing proliferation of animated ads on every damned website around.
You’re such an asshole it almost defies description, Monk.
But that’s okay. You have your brief moment of schadenefreude. Then, fuck off. Time will tell.
Why bother? Silly bastard didn’t even read the article he linked, which clearly states that the artybarty missed their target by 500 metres. Not quite the same thing as “intentionally targeting civs”.
Silly bastard doesn’t even read his own comments, Phil. Can’t remember the last time I saw somebody repeatedly drop their pants in public, clearly oblivious to the gales of laughter. Beat monkyspunk black and blue with its own weapon and it just comes back for more.
It seems to me the brutally ironic adage about monkeys being smarter because they learn from pain faster applies here in spades.
I think monkyspunk must be the vile stuff one scrapes from the bottom of something, all the while repressing the gag reflex. It’s certainly not human.
A demonstration is in order:
Point taken, monkyspunk.
Ah, no, monkyspunk. There are some 60,000,000 in the Islamic world opposed to Israel’s existence. But parsing points pointlessly is your stock in trade, so…
You were proposed a damn fine mental experiment in this thread. Have you considered it carefully and responded? Only took me a half second to arrive at the only logical conclusion and I’m just a redstater.
So have at it, Einstein: Were Israel and the US to discard all arms tomorrow, unilaterally, without qualification, what would be the immediate outcome?
Conversely, were the Palestinians and Iranians and the rest of the Arab “street” to do the same thing, what would be that outcome?
I’d really like to invite you to answer the question, fucktard. Or like bigoted sitepest david, are you proud to defend your mental corruption with the same silence that led me to challenge you all over again?
The thread is yours.
tw: thats49. Now you show us 16.
Firing into civilian areas and relying on the skill of ill-trained troops to avoid hitting actual civilians is no different than targeting the civilians themselves, Phil…
As we saw in Lebabanon, the IDF sure ain’t what it used to be.
Answer my question, monkyboy:
One in which Israel, and the US agrees to stay out of it, decides it is tired of fighting and throws all its arms into the sea, unilaterally, without qualification…
…and another where the Palestinians do the same. Just spontaneously quit fighting, throw away there weapons, and surrender completely.
What do you think the next event would be in each of those instances, monkyboy?
– “…the IDF sure ain’t what it used to be”
– In case it got past you monkry fart…. neither is the moonbat alliance.
– I’m guessing, having to swallow that whole, is what has your simian shorts in a bunch.
– He won’t respond Moe….He’s having trouble coming up with one of his usual idiotarian poo flings…..You asked for a simple answer to a specific question…. monkeyfuck won’t go there….watch….
Using civilian areas deliberately , to wage acts of war is a war crime is it not MB ???…. any thoughts ?
I don’t know, B Moe.
But after 60 years of near constant bloodshed, it might be worth a try…
I don’t know, B Moe.
– If you’d stopped right there you might have had a chance, even though it’s rank bullshit because you know exactly what would happen. Your idiotarian mouthcrap just won’t let you type the words. Not responding, is your pethetic way of telling yourself you’re not losing the argument.
But after 60 years of near constant bloodshed, it might be worth a try…
– a non-answer witch illicites rounds of laughter AT you monkey, not with you, as we picture that “new cell phone service guy”, where the “customer pushes over a sea of cardboard support people, and we hear him say as the customer walks away….
“….that is a problem….But we’re working on it”…
Great, why don’t you turn your laser like intellect towards the Pali’s and convince them of the wisdom of peaceful coexistence.
Otherwise, just Fuck Off.
Then you are either a complete idiot, or a black-hearted lying piece of shit.
If the Palestinians stopped fighting, Israel and the US would be there with food, medicine and aid in days. Israel would be more than happy to negotiate a territorial settlement, they wouldn’t be eager to have access to the new market and labor force.
If Israel quit, it would be invaded and burned to the ground in weeks. You fucking know it is true.
The thing that disgusts me about people like you, monk, is that I do care about the Palestinian people, it breaks my heart to see the way they have been used. Look at the ignorance and squalor that is there existence, and tell me how Yasser Arafat died a fucking billionaire? How many leaders of Hamas are following in his footsteps now, filling a Swiss bank account with the blood of the Palestinian children?
If you cared, you would be preaching this message, not defending and giving Peace prizes to some of the most vile creatures to ever pass themselves off as human.
Fuck you.
“which illicits” but it works the other way too…. *snort*
– monkey, just like your Marxocrat brothers, you’ve got nothing….
I believe you guys said the same thing about Hezbollah and the peace treaty…
Looks pretty peaceful in north Israel these days.
Oh, and also, I use ‘laser like’ in the sense of something exceedingly narrow and generating more heat than light…
And that was monkyboy, folks. Let’s give him a big hand. He’ll be here forever until he’s finally banned or his mother takes away his computer.
When I see his name, I always thing of the sounds a chimpanzee. However, a chimp probably has more intelligence.
*they would be eager*
“Looks pretty peaceful in north Israel these days.”
– and so monkeyshit goes splat again , and scurries off in another direction.
– Thats it turdball….You’ve repeated the same bullshit anti-American screeds on this blog over and over and over since the first time you showed up here. You’re on perm ignore, and don’t bother asking any of your usual antagonistic quesstions, your one pony act is done.
He’s both.
Don’t let facts penetrate the bubble, BBh?
Believe it or not, most people want to live in peace and get on with their lives…
The only violent places in the Middle East the ones occupied by American and Israeli “peacebringer.”
Go figure…
Still no answer, monkyspunk? You ball-less chimp. You simpering, craven coward.
Try this instead: Post up J Effing Kerry’s Planâ„¢, little man. Shoot me the copy you KosKidz are, so humorously and transparently, condemning their own media at this very minute for not producing for the last two stinking years.
And where’s that Timetableâ„¢?
Where’s my Bring Our Hero’s Homeâ„¢ parade?
Where’s the Dems Support the Troopsâ„¢ agenda?
Where’s the promised Mideast Peace Planâ„¢?
Where, monkyspunk, is The Planâ„¢, you little puke? You had years to produce, and when your CC undertook a surgical strike, the technical exellence and life-saving elegance of which hadn’t been seen in the history of warfare, and the result of which was to liberate brown people, what did you lying sacks of opportunistic pathological shit do?
You called foul and kicked the ball off the court, leaving hundreds of thousands in danger for their lives.
Like I said, all you tolerant, peace-loving Leftist frauds, you just got handed your biggest nightmare. All eyes are turned and even as Bush is planning on waxing the pickup and just saying fuck you. You children are in charge.
So help me God, I’ll personally beat your little methaphorical ass right here in this space if one hair on one Iraqi head is harmed needlessly.
You. Little. Fraud. Bush was a fool. But the Left is positively suicidal.
The country isn’t even governable under what we’ve become. Congratulations.
Thankfully. Like cops in the slums, eh, Einstein?
Hehe,
That’s seems like a stretch, 6gun.
Let’s pull those troops out and see what happens.
I have an idea they’ll become peaceful, too.
Certainly worth a try…
6g – It’s your call, but I for one have had enough. He’s here trying to really piss off the opposition, to cover for the fact that his gaggle has just taken the gas. they’re through, and he knows it, so its all he can do at this point. Play “in your face” games. That last piece of Marxist tripe should be framed and hung in the great hall of stupid statements of the Centuary.
– I got your bubble monkey. If Jeff doesn’t show you the door soon, I think he and you will have a very nice time together talking to each other.
– Your movement is dead. Kaput. Gone. And if I ran this show, so would you be.
Ladies and Gentlemen: I’m going to beg you now…
Ignore the chimp idiot.
All of us are empowering his sense of control by him to hijack threads with thoroughly off topic extreme comments. All of us rightious PW dudes and dudettes then rush yammer at the poo flinger allowing him to notch another success in moving the intellectual tone of this blog to a 2nd grade level.
He has proven that he has no interest in debate, exchange of ideas or in factual scholarship of any kind. He is merely interersted in sitting in front of his computer and cackiling at all of the perceived chaos that he creates.
Please, please, please stop empowering him and, eventually, he will slink away to another site to spread his feces.
Actually, BJ,
I post here in the hope that someone will offer up a better justification for our current foreign policy than racism coupled with a distorted understanding of history.
Hope springs eternal…
Now that the dems have a house majority, the news from the MSM has already started to change. On the radio, where there is hourly news updates from ABC, I heard for the first time ever, an interesting factiod added on to the daily death toll in Iraq. It seems that, in addition to 60 Iraqi civilians and 1 US soldier killed by the “insurgents”, there were 14 terrorists killed, and 28 captured.
I really believe that now the dems can share the glory, we will finally start getting the whole story in the WOT, and the thing will start to turn around.
The obvious stench of this fact will never be acknowledged by the lefties, but hey, if it means they will finally get on the right side in this war, I’ll not mention it (too often) either.
Any bets on how long it is before the same media darlings that threw crap pies on the economy for… oh… the last three years start pointing out what a sun-shiney day it is in thier “New America”tm? Anyone?
Of course, until the tax increases hit and shove the economy down a deep, dark hole….
But fret not. Bush is there to take that blame, too.
Damn twat waffles.
You’re a liar. You post here in the very spirit of bigotry and racism. You publicly tip your hatred of midwestern white America—presumably religious—and brown people.
What I’d do if I were you, monkyspunk, is take a direct shot at the host. Come on, you can do it. All the rest of the Jewish world is your toilet, what you waiting for?
The only violent places in the Middle East the ones occupied by American and Israeli “peacebringer.â€Â
I’ll take that as an admission you’ve never actually been to the middle east, Monkypoo.
Life there is cheaper than your sister’s honor.
TW: Even with the help of a whopping 40 point curve, Monkeyboy still only averaged76 on the IQ tests.
according to Ace it’s already happened.
hope you placed your bet early.
TW: morning62. you shut up, TW!!! new morning my *ss. and i’m not nearly that old.
That didn’t take long. I just saw the first info-mercial where for just $19.95 Ned Lamont will teach anyone how to throw $4 mil up a wild hog’s ass.
Oh, and he’ll paint your car, too.
Lets not forget sherrod brown’s win or harold ford’s loss.
Per usual, actus wants to pick nits, though in this case “nits” is probably too big to describe it.
Harold Ford’s life time ADA rating is 84. His lifetime ACU rating is 19. So not really a loss by a conservative Democrat, no matter how many hunting jackets he donned on the campaign trail. (I will say that he ran one of the better campaigns, from what I saw.)
As for Sherrod Brown, he had the good fortune to be running in OH, which was in ‘06 what IL was in ‘04—a state where the issue of corruption was a drag on the entire GOP ticket—not enough to sink some of the House seats, but enough to make them all much closer races. DeWine alienated conservatives as well. That’s another reason why I wrote that there was “some” truth in the Iraq point; there were other factors, such as scandal, too. (It’s also why William Jefferson finds himself in a runoff he will likely lose in LA.)
Overall, the point holds, as stated in the WaPo piece:
But if actus can convince the House Dems to act like they have a big Leftist mandate, more power to him.
BTW, though I misidentified Jane Hamsher as the foaming fdl blogger in the initial entry, it turns out Hamsher did do some anti-Emanuel foaming of her own, agreeing with Fred Barnes that the number of “unconventional Democrats” is being exaggerated.
Of course, neither Hamsher nor Barnes provides any counter-examples, or any particular reason Emanuel (who recruited many or most of them) would have to make this up.
OTOH, here’s another dozen examples illustrating Dems’ run to the center.
It will be fun to see the Left implode.
B Moe-
Thanks for the early morning hernia. That’s about as funny as it gets in this new millenium
M-Fart –
This is truly hilarious.
You dare mention the word “history” when you are so obviously unaware of same?
This is the last time that you will be acknowledged by me, because you are an illiterate moron. Why don’t you find out the truth about Palestine before you open your big, moronical mouth?
It is ignorant assholes like you who have put badly disguised Marxists in charge of our legislature. I hate to sound like Pat Robertson (who I despise), buty ignoramuses like yourself are destroying our freedoms.
Brownshirts? Look in the mirror, asshole.
Why don’t you just go away? You are too immature and undereducated to be here…
You name 3 house candidates—one of which does plenty with sherrod brown on the economics front. I name 2 senate candidates. You’re 1 short of a nit.
He ran on the right. And it failed. Next door, McCaskil ran on stem cells. And that worked. But thats nit.
Call it what you will. Now there won’t be any GOP legislation. Also, any previous GOP legislation thats up for reauthorization will be scaled back. Even some thats not up will be scaled back. There’s going to be broad based 100 hour agenda that they all agree on. And there’s going to be oversight, but thats a decision by each committee head. You may not be used to what that looks like, but most of it goes under the media radar. Democrats have this silly idea that government should govern, and actually try to watch that agencies do that. Morons huh?
The dems don’t have a tom delay to arm twist people in voting for things like that crap medicare bill and things like that. Which is good thing. They also won some statehouses, so the house majority can be strengthened.
We’ll see. For me, the victory is agenda setting power—stopping this ridiculous right legislation. Whatever we can get in addition is just icing on the cake.
actus –
Compared to monkyboy, you are a delight.
If the Dems actually do what Karl Pelosi has said they will, you guys are fucked. The vote was against the assholes who call themselves Republicans, not for socialism.
You need to get used to that pretty quick.
Hey, last week I was told that a vote for teh dems was a vote for the terrorists. Now I find out it was a vote for conservatives. Whatever floats your boat. Lets see how popular the 100 hours really are. I think they’re the kind of thing people support: lower school loans, lower medicare costs (look at that a Spending cut!), a restored minimum wage, lobbying reforms.
People may not have been voting for that—they may have wanted the terrorists to win—but i think they’ll like what they got.
May I be the first to say that I actually appreciate actus taking the time to expand on his opinions rather than just snarking his answers. I really do appreciate it.
Bob Casey, Joe Sestak, Patrick Murphy all ran campaigns of the moderate to conservative meme. In PA, where I live, the one out and out unapologetic liberal was Lois Murphy, who lost a very tight race to Jim Gerlach. The characterization is not 100% but, in whole, the Dem’s were preaching a message that was decidedly not the moveon/kos/huff line. The fact that Hardin Smith and Hamsher are already caterwauling about Rahm’s and Nancy’s bi-partisan comments should be a sign of small concern.
Accept your point on McCaskill, but let’s be realistic. Ford would never have gotten as many votes as he got in Tennessee if he uncloaked his real liberal roots. Each state has its own concept of political spacing, but the Ford example doesn’t bury the “move to the center” strategy that was quite brilliantly adopted by the Dems in this elections. Speaking for PA, none of the Democratic candidates ran heavily on rescinding tax cuts, pulling out of Iraq and/or Afganistan, cutting defense spending, blowing up the Patriot Act (pun intended) or wiretapping. It was an endless drumbeat of Bush has failed, no plan in Iraq and Republican corruption. Well thought out and well executed. Oh, yea, there was some minimum wage stuff, but not a lot.
This stikes me as naive and certainly not historical. Remember Lyndon Johnson, Tip O’Neill and others? Armtwisters all and very, very good at it. As far as Pelosi and Reid, the jury’s still out but I suspect there will be a little arm twisting along the way.
Will they all agree on it? Will the “real liberals” also agree? Time will tell but, again, I have to say that you’re being just a bit naive.
I, for one, don’t have any problem with that. This entire congress needs way more transparency especially when it comes to the unconcionable prolifigate spending of the taxpayers dole. The question will be whether or not that oversight deals with what voters overwhelmingly want to be dealt with: corruption, lobbyist abuse, Iraq contract abuse, plan for withdrawal, immigration and border security. If it becomes (as Conyers would like) an opportunity to jab at the Bush administration for the purpose of political theater, then you just may find voters growing quickly frustrated with the lack of progress on all legislation as a result.
I don’t say this to be a jerk or to tweak you. I think that if “real liberals” as opposed to classical liberals and moderates, believe that this election is a mandate for the far left agenda and a Republican bloodletting, I believe that you will be disappointed. That disappointment and the inevitable rage that will follow, could make things difficult for Dems and is something that at least Pelosi, Rahm, and Shumer have considered.
It’s going to be an interesting 2 years.
That’s simplistic at best. The exit polls were pretty telling: Iraq and the economy were important but so was corruption and out of control spending. I know that you want to see this victory through the prism of your own desires but many voters spoke to reject Republicans who were not Republicans and the way Iraq was going. Lobbyist and pork spending reform should gain wide bi-partisan support, as will a comprehensive plan for Iraq, as well as a detailing of the corruption both in and out of Congress. All well and good. A mandate to jump all over entitlements, minumum wage, throwing out the Patrioit act and giving amnesty to 11 million illegals with full benefits and social security? I’m not so sure and you shouldn’t be either.
Don’t overreach, actus. This is not a clear m,andate for the far left position on all things. Win the battles that you can and we conservatives/classical liberals will be content with a good Iraq plan, corruption smackdown and pork spending transparancy.
If you think that in 2 years your side of the spectrum is going to get all of that, then send me whatever you are smoking.
And you ignored the other dozen examples in your reply. But what ever floats your boat.
Allright karl. I’ll give you this one. You tell me Casey, pro-union, pro-estate tax, pro-minimum wage, is the sort of moderate to conservative you’re talking about? I let you have that. And add that this is the view that trounced the extreme conservatism of Santorum. I’ll give you that.
actus was actually responding to BJTexs. Then again, reading is not a strong point for actus.
If it was, he would know that my initial post argues that the Democrats gained seats with more conservative candidates. Obviously, some conservative Republicans lost in those races. D-uh! The point was that the Dems who beat them had to be fairly moderate-to-conservative to do so. (And he still ignored my other dozen examples of this.)
The other point of the initial post is that even fielding more electable candidates, and with all of the headwinds against the GOP, the Dems managed the historical average of a “sixth year,” and below the average for midterms where the Pres is below 50 percent. If they want to hold those newly-won seats, the Dems will have to behave themselves. Otherwise, they will slip back to the GOP.
now this one is a little weird. Because this historical average is from a different time—when there wasn’t this precise gerrymandering. Its of the magnitude of 1994. Maybe more, if, as is claimed, dems won without a plan.
Also, there were really only 7 senate seats within reach—including kyl. Dems got 6/7. I don’t know about that and ‘historical averages.’ Lets see how 08 goes. There will be 21 GOP seats and 12 dem seats up then.
But ok. If you want moderate to conservative to mean what people stood for, what Webb stands for when he talks about social justice, a fairness on race, class and economic advantage, and rebuilding ours infrastructure? Sounds fine to me. And I hope this “moderate to conservative” keep winning. Also I hope they keep being democrats, because then democrats have agenda setting power.
I think the goal is move it out of the House within the first few days. But they might space it out, for effect.
I know. Its mandate for things I keep getting told are conservative to moderate positions like being pro-unions, having oversight, raising the minimum wage and addressing class issues.
I wasn’t clear that i wasn’t being historical. I’m talking about now. I don’t think pelosi and reid are as effective as the Hammer. But maybe now they’ll have more power and can do more.
It’s obvious actus was not being “historical,” because anytime he gets near history, he shows he knows nothing about it.
Let’s take redistricting. actus writes:
History is from a different time—stop the presses!
As actus has been to law school, it is not too much to presume that he has some dim recollection of Baker v. Carr, which is significant here because it demonstrates that all sorts of egregious gerrymandering was the norm before the 60s, as it was not subject to federal judicial review. So it didn’t have to be precise to be effective.
The fact that this change, the elimination of Jim Crow, the weakening of political patronage, etc. all happened and the same pattern of the sixth term is observed, regardless of which party holds the presidency strengthens the point—exactly contrary to actus. (The same could be said of the much larger average loss observed in midterms where the Prez is below 50% approval.)
Second, the redistricting that attracted so much left-wing ire in Texas in 2003 resulted in a Congressional delegation that more accurately reflected the partisan balance in that state.
Third, the TX redistricting caused a swing of 5 seats. The swing in 1994 was 54 seats, even before the TX redistricting. Indeed, as the GOP did not control a majority of statehouses at that time, their victory occurred despite Dem-leaning gerrymanders.
Fourth, the overall effect of gerrymandering is to protect incumbents in both parties (not unlike campaign finance reform). So if the gerrymandering is more precise, it benefits the Dems as well as the GOP.
If actus could actually point to redistricting affecting a significant number of seats in the 2006 election he would. But he can’t. It’s a lefty talking-point thrown around with little basis in fact, but with a great deal of residual hatred for Tom DeLay. So comparing 28 or 29 seats to 54 is a fantasy.
BTW, actus talks about the Dems having won without a plan, when it’s fairly obvious that they did have a plan. Rahm Emanuel in particular had a plan. He recruited more moderate candidates to run, particularly in the marginal districts. Of 28 seats Democrats picked up, 22 were won by less than 2 percent of the vote and 18 were won by just 5,000 votes or less.
This is actus trying to stick his words in other people’s mouths. We’re looking at a candidate’s positions on all of the issues, not claiming the ones he mentioned are conservative.
To take actus’s example of Jim Webb:
In reality, it was bad design, but it sounds like a bipartisan indictment to me.
How ‘bout Immigration?
The amnesty crowd will love him. BTW, in the last cycle, Reps who took this position tended to get branded as racist, but I’m sure Webb’s election is another part of that racial fairness agenda actus sees coming.
And on economics, he again sounds like Pat Buchanan. The new Congress will certainly be more protectionist, but populism is not confined to the Left.
More generally:
Raising the minimum wage is popular and will pass. It will marginally depress the employment prospects for those trying to grab the bottom rung of the economic ladder, but maybe that’s part of the race and class fairness agenda actus wants to see addressed so badly.
And while on the subject of racial fairness, I note the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative passed with 58 percent in that oh-so-Blue state, as Dem candidates swept to victory. But I doubt that’s what actus had in mind for a mandate.
Rebuilding our infrastructure? Didn’t Clinton promise to do that in ‘92? Didn’t he have a Dem-controlled Congress for two years to do it? Maybe Sen. Byrd will get ‘round to that after he finishes paving the rest of W Va.
Baker v. Carr was due to there NOT being enough redistricting, not being enough usage of geographic maps. It was due to districts not equating 1 person 1 vote. Redistricting back then was not like what it is now—we now have finely drawn partisan districts. That wasn’t the case with Baker v. Carr.
I know. Thats my point. It prevents swings. Swings are less likely now than in the past.
For michigan? I don’t know what kind of a mandate that sets. South Dakota defeated an abortion ban. What does that mean for national politics? That the pro-life position is officially extremist?
Like I said before. I welcome our new ‘moderate to conservative’ overlords.
actus:
The word “gerrymander” dates back to 1812, taken from a political cartoon depicting Eldridge Gerry’s district as a salamander, due to the odd boundaries drawn to protect his party advantage. And before that, even the borders of the states were drawn to deal with the slavery issue. Districts were also drawn to protect various regional interests that fall along party lines—urban vs. rural, etc. It’s by no means a new phenomenon in US politics.
And I explained the significance of Baker to the discussion—there was no meaningful review of the districts drawn before the 1960s. Thus, there was no need to be as precise as they can be today with computers. The dominant party could draw the districts any which way it pleased, including the original “gerrymander.”
Produce a link showing that redistricting accounts for any significant portion of why the Dems gained the average 29 instead of the 54 the GOP gained in 1994. Or give it up.
(btw, if actus looks long enough, in addition to TX, he should find a few more GOP redistrictings that added GOP districts. But the total number of seats—including TX—is about 12. And in the case of TX, as previously noted, the redistricting created a Congressional delegation that more accurately represented the partisan makeup of that state. I suspect the same could be said with respect to the other 7 seats, but haven’t crunched the numbers. What this should suggest to actus is that redistricting is much less of a factor than the decades long trend to more party-line voting in the US generally.)
I’m saying theres more now, and its more refined.
And the problem in Baker was that they weren’t redrawing districts. They were keeping them without redraws as the city ones had grown to represent lots of people while the rural ones didn’t. Baker v. Carr looked at numbers, not partisanship. What I’m talking about is partisan districting, not numerical.
There is no link. There is just what you told me about districting—that it makes swings less likely. And there is the fact that we do it to a finer extent now than before. Thats the argument.
Redistricting will add seats during the election right after it. But it will prevent swings in other elections. Thats the point.
What actus originally wrote:
Maybe more, if, as is claimed, dems won without a plan.</blockquote>
He can’t back that up. He now admits as much. He has an “argument” for which he has no empirical evidence. He has a condition which is necessary, but not sufficient to prove what he wrote. And so the dissembling begins.
I have the empirical evidence that now we have more computer processing power to use when redistricting and drawing more precise partisan lines. Is that a problem?
What kind empirical evidence could be used to show that there is more refined partisan redistricting now? Do you seriously think that there isn’t? That the redistricting that exists now is just like 1812?
Necessary? Whats the part that’s necessary? All I say is that I think more attention is paid to redistricting now. Is that the necessary part?
The swing in 1994 was 54 seats, The swing this year was 29.
Again, you are the one who wrote:
Show me where redistricting saved 25 seats for the GOP—or even half that many—and that the redistricting unfairly reflects the party makeup of those states. That’s the necessary part. And that’s the part you can’t do.
Didn’t you tell me that they gerrymandered some 5 in texas? So thats not half. But its on the way there. How many more you think they did?
TX was 5 seats, resulting in a Congressional delegation that reflects the number of Republican voters in TX. Prior to that, the Dems had 60% of the seats with 40% of the popular vote. Not much of a gerrymander, really—which was one reason the GOP couldn’t hold the DeLay seat, which became less Republican.
And it’s your burden to back up what you wrote, not mine.