« Victory in VA-10 | Main | Ratchet up the Pressure in Iraq? »
November 8, 2006
Election Post Mortem
Overall
We lost fair and square. No doubt there was cheating in places, but there always is. Sure, we had all of the media except for Fox News against us (the Washington Times is too small to count much), but that's always been the case, and this time we do have the blogosphere. Bottom line is we shouldn't start in on how "the people are stupid", but rather use it as a time to plan for victory in 2008.
Let's not become like a bunch of moonbats and start falling for all sorts of wild conspiracy theories about voter "intimidation", Diebold machines and all what-not.
Further, let's not overreact. I can't find the link right now to prove it, but from what I've read GOP losses were about average for a the 2nd mid-term elections of a two-term president. Clinton did well in 1998, but he suffered his loss in 1994.
The Blame
Although most MSM pundits, and the Democrat leadership, will say that the reason Republicans were defeated was that going into Iraq was a mistake. More about the war below, but this is at best a half-truth.
Michael Ledeen had it partially right when he wrote that
I think Mark Steyn sums it up well: this was a normal 6th year election, not a paradigm shift. narrow margins in both houses of Congress, and we're back to divided government. I think the left's pickups were basically due to disenchantment with Bush and the state of the war in Iraq. In retrospect, isn't it fair to say that Bush's reelection and the Congressional results in '04 were basically a message to him? Get Iraq right, you've got two years or else.And he hasn't got Iraq right, so the "or else" arrived as threatened.
No doubt there is a lot of truth to this. The American people are frustrated with Iraq. They want - or wanted - victory. Since this has not occured, they want to put someone else in charge. This is understandable.
But I think that Republicans could have survived had they kept their base. They didn't because the President and the Republicans in Congress didn't carry forth on their promises. The big three that I can think of are: 1) Spending on pork-barrell projects. Too many thought that they could buy off their constituants by "bringing home the bacon". This might work with liberals, but it turns off conservatives. 2) An ever-increasing federal government. At least Reagan tried to kill the utterly useless Dept of Education, and in the 1990s we tried to get rid of federal spending for the arts, but today's Republicans don't even try. 3) Illegan immigration. More on this below, but suffice it to say that this has become a huge issue and the national GOP refused to address the issue until it was too late.
Corruption was also an issue. It's not so much specific cases, as it is just the perception that Haskert et al didn't want to reform the system after the Abramoff scandal broke. And it's based in truth, because they didn't. It's no use complaining that there's a double standard, our guys (Cunningham, Foley) resign while theirs (Studds, Hastings) continue in office. Let's just resolve to purge our ranks of wrong-doers and start over again.
The War
The Democrat leadership will say that the election proves that Iraq was a mistake and that we need an immediate pull-out. I think it's more that Americans' are just disappointed that we haven't won it. The lesson, I think, is that after the initial invasion we lapsed into a series of half-measures when we should have gone for broke.
James Robbins thinks we're headed "back to the seventies", and it's hard to disagree.
The outcome of the 2006 midterm elections will have serious consequences for the war on terrorism and U.S. national security generally. If you liked the foreign-policy impotence of the 1970s, get ready for moreWhether they did so consciously or not, the American people chose the party of cut-and-run. There's no no nice way to put it. You can say that the Virginia Senate race, for example, was lost by Allen's mistakes all you want, but the fact is that Webb was Mr. anti-war and this is who they chose. A reader they called the Pessimistic Hawk wrote into NRO with sentiments I again find hard to disagree with
Sooner or later, Baker's recommendations will likely be implemented, at which point al-Qaeda will be left in control of Anbar, Salahaddin, and possibly Babil and Diyala as well. They won't have any oil, but they'll have their failed state and that will give them a base from which to strike throughout the rest of the Middle East. Whether or not they are able to work out a manageable detente with Muqtada al-Sadr (who I expect will likely seize the southern part of the country), they won't be able to conquer his territory nor vice versa, meaning that we will still have a failed terrorist state made up of what was central Iraq to deal with. Oh, and a lot of innocent Iraqis are going to die, probably in the tens of thousands. But no one here will care about them, just like no one ever cares about the hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese and Cambodians who died when we abandoned Vietnam, but the important thing is that we'll all feel that much better.Illegal Aliens
You'll hear a lot of "The GOP lost the Latino vote because of it's hard-line stance on illegals". Me: so you're saying that Latinos are in favor of illegal behavior? If so, then I don't want them in my party. Now, maybe we revisit the details of how we go about stopping illegal crossings (focus more on jailing employers or increasing legal immigration), but no way am I going to turn a blind eye to illegal immigration. Besides, it'll just alienate the base, and all you'll have accomplished is trade one voter for another.
The big danger here is that Bush or some other Republican will say that "this proves the need for comprehensive immigration reform", which will only drive the base further from the party.
I disagree with Fred Barnes that "what Americans want is a comprehensive solution to the immigration crisis" He says that Republicans "come together on a "comprehensive" measure that not only secures the border but also provides a way for illegals in the United States to work their way to citizenship and establishes a temporary worker program."
What a joke. We've been down this path before. When Reagain was president they passed a "comprehensive" bill which legalized the illegals, but it ended up ignoring the border problem. If they pass another "comprehensive" bill, we'll get the same thing: they'll legalize the legals, and once the see that attention is diverted to something else will go back on their promises to secure the border. It's all guaranteed to keep illegals streaming into the country. What a joke.
Yes I know, what about JD Hayworth? He's big on stopping illegal immigration and he lost his house seat. I'd say that his problem was that he made it his centerpiece, and it's the single issue by which we came to know him. He became too vehement on it and became perceived as a bit of a fanatic. Basically, he overplayed his hand. So while stopping illegal immigration should be part of the conservative agenda, it should not be centerpiece of the agenda.
Closer to Home
Last night I wrote about how my local congressman, Frank Wolf, won reelection. It was about the only good news of the night.
It looks like James Webb, who defeated Senator George Allen in Virginia, is going to play the Absolute Moral Authority card if anyone questions his stance on Iraq. As John Miller pointed out on NRO
The Washington Post, on Oct. 18:
Virginia Democratic Senate candidate James Webb, who was critically wounded as a Marine in Vietnam, said yesterday that he is uncomfortable talking about his personal story even if doing so could help him unseat Republican Sen. George Allen on Nov. 7.The Washington Post, right now:
When Webb claimed victory, he did it as a Marine. He came into the Vienna hotel ballroom accompanied by his brother Gary playing the bagpipes, and about a dozen of his Marine buddies emerged from behind the stage. He stood at attention, ramrod straight, as they filed in.
The biggest disappointment of the night was Michael Steele's loss in Maryland. I think everyone in the conservative camp was pulling for him, and if it hadn't been a hard year for Republicans all 'round, he would have won. I don't think we've heard the last of him, though, and that is a good thing.
Allen and Steele lost, and The Washington Post won.
2008
Also, I've heard that this enhances the prestige of John McCain. Obviously, with the defeat of George Allen, this removes one of his potential challengers for 2008. Given that evangelicals will likely reject Mitt Romney because of his Morman beliefs, and Guliani is simply too liberal, this enhances McCain's chances of getting the nomination. But since he is despised by so many conservatives, it also greatly increases the chance of a Democrat seizing the White House.
Romney, in his press release, said all the things that conservatives want to hear. I'm starting to like him more and more, but I just don't think he'll be able to get over the "Mormon thing".
Meanwhile, John McCain is saying all the right things on Iraq in his most recent press releases, see here and here.
For all of my differences w/McCain, he is right on the war. And his take down of Barack Obama last February was beautiful. And deserved.
The Good News
Pretty sparse, but here are a few things to consider.
The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, and the Marriage Amendment in Virginia won by convincing margins. So the left needs to realize that the American people aren't buying their social visions.
Also, notice now gun control and abortion have disappeared from Democrat talking points? With the former, almost all Democrats now at least say that they're pro-2nd Amendment. Only the ones in the bluest of districts talk about passing new gun-control laws. See David Kopel's article on how our Second Amendment freedoms are largely still secure even with a Democrat House and Senate.
In addition, Arizona passed Prop. 103, English as the state's official language, 74%-26%. This, too, is a good thing.
Other than that, I hear we won a few dogcatcher races out west somewhere.
Posted by Tom at November 8, 2006 9:45 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/781
Comments
I only disagree with your summary that the Republicans lost because they strayed from the “base.” This was no landslide for the Democrats, and the key races that determined House and Senate leadership were with 5 percentage points, hardly a massive victory or vindication of the left. My feeling is that Democrats succeeded (for a change) in winning the center.
I think this can be best summarized by the electoral gains by a noticeably large group of “blue dog Democracts,” who are pro-life, pro-gun, socially conservative democrats. These new politicians who helped push the Democrats over the top are hardly your typical Moveon/Daily Kos/left wing base that many suspected the Democratic Party was becoming dominated by. In effect, I think these people (like Webb, a former Republican) were able to capture enough of the center to gain the upper hand, but I hardly think of this as a landslide. Take away bad feeling about Iraq and recent scandals, and I think the Republicans can easily re-take these voters in 2008. Using the Karl Rove strategy to appeal only to the base could work against the Republicans, if they lose these center voters that made all the difference in this election, but that is pure speculation on my part at this time.
I would completely agree with McCain on the reform issue, this election was a cakewalk for the Democrats with the plethora of scandals, both sexual and of corruption. The pork barrel politics and outright bribery (Ney and Duke Cunningham) just tainted the party in this election. Hopefully the Republicans can purge themselves of these corrupt types and get back to their genuine small government/wise fiscal roots which were totally abandoned in the last 4-6 years with bridges to nowhere in Alaska, and total fiscal irresponsibility in which not one single spending bill was vetoed while spending has ballooned like a Ross Perot graph. Since Bush took office, domestic spending has shot up by 36 percent, according to the Office of Budget and Management and the Cato institute. This occurred under the last Republican lead Congress. Again, Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill.
Of course, now the Democrats have more than enough rope to hang themselves with, and I really doubt the Congress will have any meaningful effect on improving the war in Iraq, it’s up to the Iraqi’s now. The greatest thing I think so far has been the appointment of Bob Gates as Rumsfeld’s successor. Gates was a member of the Iraq Study group and I think he is a great pick for very hard job as Sec. Defense, who really should have an understanding of the situation and has a management style that will allow for increased feedback from his Generals. It was a telling event when the Army, Navy and Airforce newspapers all ran and opinion piece calling for Rumsfeld to go a few weeks ago.
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2333360.php
Posted by: jason at November 10, 2006 4:36 PM
Though a lifelong Democrat I appreciate your response to the recent elections. So many of those in the conservative blog movement have been uable or unwilling to assess the loss in a coherent manner. Instead they revert to their usual name calling, fear mongering, and patriot baiting. Thanks for your comments.
Posted by: John Cook at November 10, 2006 8:51 PM
Thank you both for stopping by. I had expected more criticism of my analysis from liberals. I suspect you're both just in a good mood because of your victory and feeling generous. Which is good of you.
I've followed politics since about 1976 and have seen a lot of ups and downs. It's good in theory that one party never holds power for too long, but theory is cold comfort when you've lost.
jason is surely right when he talks about the new "group of “blue dog Democracts,” who are pro-life, pro-gun, socially conservative democrats". I see this as a victory for my side. If you're pro-gun and socially conservative, I don't care what party you're in.
You're also right about the corruption and spending. It was the former that helped defeat the Dems in 1994 (Post Office Scandal etc) and it helped defeat the GOP this time. I've written before about the spending and big government so you know how disappointed I am on them.
And that's what I'm talking about when I say they strayed from the base. This is what I meant when I said that Iraq isn't the whole story.
Unfortunately I'm not as sanguine about the Baker Commission, but more on that later.
One thing I've avoided doing is playing the "gee now the terrorists are happy" line. Believe it or now, conservatives are divided on this. Yes, Abu Hamza al-Muhajir issued a statment saying how happy he was that Bush lost. But as Captain Ed of Captain's Quarters said
The Islamists have made a culture out of spinning massive defeats into sterling victories. If the wind shifted from the north to the east, these people would claim it as a sign of Allah's grace on their jihad even if it blew half of them into the Persian Gulf. They lie for a living and a hobby. It's the only tool they have to garner their benighted followers and convince them to die.
Jonah Goldberg, writing at The Corner, made another good point when he said that
I don't think that merely because al Qaeda types are happy about the election that this means their interpretation is correct. Since 9/11 I've heard Bush critics make the argument many times that Bush was doing exactly what the terrorists want, that he was playing into their hands etc etc. Depending on the actual policy being debated, I've often thought that Bush's critics were probably or at least possibly correct. Saying, "that's exactly what Bin Laden wants you to do" is not by itself a persuasive argument against a course of action. Why? Because Bin Laden doesn't have a pipeline into the future any more than the rest of us. Whether he's a whackjob or not (or even alive), the law of unintended consequences applies equally to everybody. Obviously, Al Qaeda wanted 9/11 to happen, but the evidence suggests that they didn't appreciate the consequences of their actions. If the Looming Tower is to be believed, for example, those attacks brought about their near complete destruction.
I'm not saying I totally agree with the Captain or Goldberg, but both are solid conservatives, and when they pass up a chance to skewer the left, I pay attention.
Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at November 11, 2006 11:24 AM



