Post-Election Miscellany
- Yesterday, no doubt in a heightened emotional state, I read some blog where the writer said: "It's official! The AP has called Virginia for Jim Webb!" Now, admittedly, I'm an unrepentant pedant at times, but what in the world makes him think that the Associated Press' opinion makes it "official"? I'm sure he realizes that congressional elections are made official by the congress itself, according to the Constitution.
- Liberals could use a bit of self-confidence. Already I read something by a Democrat starting to worry that perhaps their winning majorities in both House and Senate is too good to be true. Perhaps it's all some really, really devious plan concocted by Rove and Bush and the others, but to what end he couldn't yet divine.
- Republicans know it's coming, but none are telling us yet what date Democrats have set for surrendering to "the terrorists".
- Some keep proclaiming, at long last, the end of the "Republican revolution", but which one has been ended keeps getting pushed earlier with each repetition: the Gingrich Revolution, the Reagan Revolution, the Goldwater revolution…. I've seen something mentioned as far back as the late 19th century so far.
- I'm fascinated by all the analyses proclaiming that some few votes here or there won a race, or that a particular senate seat won the Senate, etc. It's an amusing rhetorical device, but it has no causal validity.
- So, did the election represent the "will of the people" because twice the usual number voted in this mid-term election, or not, because only 40% of the eligible electorate voted?
- Is Rumsfeld out of the picture simply so he can avoid answering awkward questions during the Congressional investigations one imagines are imminent? Will becoming a "private citizen" protect him? Will he be extradited to Germany to face war-crimes charges?
- Thirty-six hours and no mention yet of George Soros. What gives?
- Does Ken Mehlman have whiplash yet from being yanked in and out of his closet?
7 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Friday, 10 November 2006 at 00.41
Permalink
A few years of steady losses, with someone like Rove setting strategy on the other side brings out the paranoid tendencies, all right.
The obvious trap, were such deviousness truly at work here, is having to deal with the Iraq quagmire. From the GOP standpoint, the best of all domestic political outcomes is to have the Democrats engineer something that can be condemned as a premature withdrawal leading to chaos and an obscene bloodbath, followed by the emergence of a radical Islamic state in league with Iran.
Then, the Republicans would spend the next 30 or 40 years beating Democrats up as the ones who lost Iraq and turned what had been a democratization trend into a retreat-and-defeat setback and source of humiliation.
on Friday, 10 November 2006 at 00.49
Permalink
FWIW, I date the start of neoconservative Republican ascendency in national politics to the 1980 Reagan campaign. That's not just because Reagan won. Equally definitive were the vicious, anything-to-win strategy and tactics. It was all there, thanks to Roger Ailes and Lee Atwater: politics of personal destruction/demonizing the opposition, stealing the meaning of words, lying and dirty tricks.
And to top it all off, there was the spectacular and treasonous humiliation of an already vanquished foe in the form of the unconscionable deal with Iran to release U.S. hostages just after Reagan was inaugurated. A candidate or even president-elect has no business dealing with a foreign power, most especially a hostile one.
BTW, Jeff, this is one reason why I think in situations such as Iran's holding our embassy people hostage for months, the U.S. should declare war. Doesn't mean we have to send the B-52's over and then invade. It does set certain legal things in place, and puts people here and there on notice, though. In the case of the Reagan's foul dealing, I'm quite sure it would've been an impeachable offense, had he been a party to such a deal in wartime.
on Friday, 10 November 2006 at 01.09
Permalink
You have no objectivity with regards to Reagan. Your criticisms are petty compared to the measure of greatness Reagan brought to office.
on Saturday, 11 November 2006 at 13.54
Permalink
I might give you the benefit of the doubt, Fred, and look at totaling the columns if only I could think of any measure of greatness whatsoever that Reagan brought to the office of President. The only thing I can come up with that makes Reagan look good is that he came between Nixon and the Bushes. Oh, and he grinned a lot.
on Sunday, 12 November 2006 at 09.06
Permalink
Reagan's greatness was in fostering national confidence and positivism. I suppose if one is emotionally committed to depression, negativity, and self hatred, Reagan was a supreme annoyance.
on Wednesday, 15 November 2006 at 03.50
Permalink
RSF wrote:
"Reagan's greatness was in fostering national confidence and positivism."
Sounds like the political equivalent of Elavil, a mood elavator.
And you know, the same could be said about Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez in their respective countries.
on Wednesday, 15 November 2006 at 09.12
Permalink
Morale is something beyond what Elavil can deliver.
I'll give a little nod to Castro and Chavez in this department, but there is a difference between national confidence in dealing with problems, and an ego driven attempt to satisfy a superiority complex.