Referendum
Although mid-term elections are supposedly always about local politics, this election has morphed into a referendum on Iraq -- stay the course or leave in an orderly manner -- and the Bush Presidency -- grant the President continuing authority to act in his unfettered way, as a unitary executive, with all that entails, or clip his wings. The Democratic Party did not intend either of these two questions until about two months ago, but Lamont's victory in the Nutmeg State primary and ensuing polling across the country caused virtually all Dems in serious races (probably really no more than about 60, or no more than 15% of Congressional seats!) to run campaigns that linked the President's war and his general behavior to the local Republican.
In response the Republican Party has offered essentially no agenda of any kind, and instead tried to avoid the referendum by playing the race card in Tennessee, attacking fiction in Virginia, making fun of Michael J. Fox in Missouri (that got out of control in a hurry!),and so forth. But the two questions have nevertheless been put into nearly every contestable election, mostly because the people want them asked and answered. If the Supreme Court had done its job, the referendum would be much fairer, but because one man-one vote is no longer the law of the land, an answer against the Republicans will be delivered only if there is as much as a 13% margin in aggregate voting that translates into the switch of one of the Houses of Congress. Doubtlessly the MSM will declare that the President is vindicated in all respects, and we will stay the course in Iraq, unless that 13% margin is produced and at least one House switched. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised to see the MSM declare Rove to be a genius and the President re-endorsed even if the R's lost both Houses, provided that the margins are small. Under this standard, namely, an election so gerrymandered that Rove cannot lose big, this genius label seems easy to win, but what do I know?
Without a doubt, it is true that:
..the MSM (will) declare Rove to be a genius and the President re-endorsed even if the R's lost both Houses, provided that the margins are small.
Whatever the outcome, Bush will not overcome the two big problems he created by invading Iraq, those being:
(1) the place has become a terrorist training center for urban warfare, at US taxpayers expense, and perhaps even armed by US taxpayers. link
(2) Iraq is broken, leading to a wider power struggle in the Middle East for the dying corpse of what used to be the nation of Iraq.
The US can't leave and can't stay, which is why Bush will stay the course and hand this bloody mess over to the next president.
October 30, 2006 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The Democratic Party did not intend either of these two questions until about two months ago, but Lamont's victory in the Nutmeg State primary and ensuing polling across the country caused virtually all Dems in serious races (probably really no more than about 60, or no more than 15% of Congressional seats!) to run campaigns that linked the President's war and his general behavior to the local Republican."
And why again was it that this bit of electoral wisdom had to be learned from the experiences of the Lamont/Connecticut revolt? Why wasn't this apparent to the Dem leadership? And finally, how if Lieberman does survive with his Republican financed, supported and directed campaign, does the Dem leadership think rewarding Lieberman will go over with the Dem base? I am sure they can always go to the "ideas" people at the DLC for advice. Weren't they the ones who suggested any questionning of the Bush approach on Iraq would make the Dems seem "soft" on terror.
October 31, 2006 4:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is even more remarkable about the effect of Lamont's courageous stand against Bush and the Iraq non-program is that the conventional wisdom last summer, before Lamont won the primary, was that the Republicans were going to run on an Iraq platform. Instead, Ned took their very platform and successfully turned it against them. As you say, it was only after the Lamont victory that our current crop of spineless Democrats decided that running against Bush and the Iraq war was a safe thing to do. Lamont is a real leader and a genuinely principled man. May we have him and many more like him in the new Congress.
October 31, 2006 6:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
October 31, 2006 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
The MSM ran with the meme that Bush's re-election in '04 represented some kind of "mandate"...what mandate?...LOL. They got it wrong then and if they say a GOP loss is actually a win they are still as clueless now...
If the GOP loses either or both bodies in Congress by small margins I don't care if the MSM calls Karl Rove "Jesus Christ reincarnate" because the dems will still hold power in Congress...and thusly can engage in oversight and have a say in setting the agenda for the first time in a long time. The GOP and their MSM propagandists can spin away until they are dizzy but it won't change those facts...
November 1, 2006 5:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: The MSM ran with the meme that Bush's re-election in '04 represented some kind of "mandate"
GOP partisans certainly made that claim, but I do not recall the media trumpeting it.
One of the oddest facts of today's political scene is that both sides think the media is their sworn enemy. Visit any conservative blog site and they are just absolutely convinced that the media (with the obvious exception of Fox News) is spinning the news against them.
November 2, 2006 3:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is David Gregory for MSNBC right after the '04 election...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6769388/
And here is a sampling of the MSM reaction right after the '04 courtesy of Media Matters...
http://mediamatters.org/items/200411090001
The RW partisans might have started the meme but the MSM did run with it
November 2, 2006 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Howls of outrage from the radical right expressions at the supposed left wing bias of an increasingly conservative mainstream media are not evidence of that there is a bias against them. They are, rather, the tools used to create a bias in their favor.
November 2, 2006 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink