Posted on 11/08/2006 2:10:38 PM PST by KMAJ2
Anyone who cannot admit it was a good day for democrats and a bad one for republicans is not admitting reality.
It appears the democrats picked up 30 seats in the House, giving them a 29 seat majority, most of the new seats are moderate democrats.
While the Senate has two seats undeclared, an initial assessment would be that democrats will take both and control of the Senate, as they have the lead in both Virginia (down 8000) and Montana (down 4000). AP has declared Tester as the winner in Montana.
This was the democratic process in action. So why did it happen ? The republicans were too smug and have moved away from the ideas that put them in the majority, smaller government and accountability. The conservative base became too combative among themselves fighting over their own pet issues, the democrats used these conflicts to their advantage, highlighting the in-fighting to prop up their own arguments, effectively saying "See, even some conservatives/republicans disagree with that policy" and, by implication, agree with them. And while at the end, conservatives managed to mobilize, the months of in-fighting turned the independants away. Make no mistake, in the close races, the difference was the independant voters turned off by the scandals and in-fighting.
They republicans left themselves open to a three pronged attack, an unpopular war, scandals and a left biased media. Their responses to all three were woefully inadequate and totally misgaged the attitude and frustration of the electorate. Much of how the democrats won was based on manipulation of the facts and was aided by a biased media propaganda campaign. It cannot be denied that the democrats were handed a bludgeon with the Abramof Scandal and, especially, the Foley Scandal, a well timed democrat attack that should have broken much earlier, as a major factor. The republicans reacted very poorly to both scandals, and with an adversary biased media that was a fatal flaw. Those scandals were the tipping point that determined the outcome of many of the close races that went to democrats. Without the scandals, I think, you would have seen a far different result on election day, Iraq alone would not have been enough.
So what now ? It should be an interesting next two years.
Here are some thoughts/opinions, if the democrats think this election was over anything more than the war and scandals, and try to move the country to the far left on other policies and raise taxes or pursue impeachment against the president, they will suffer a backlash. The one thing this election wasn't, was a mandate for left wing ideas because they did not campaign on any ideas, they ran against the war (even there democrats are divided - see Lieberman/Lamont results) and scandal on Capitol Hill. Many of the victories the democrats gained were with moderate/conservative democrats, not those on the far left.
Personally, I fear the decisions on the War on Terror and Iraq, if not well thought out by democrats, will severely endanger us and embolden terrorists. Anything that terrorists could perceive as being able to claim victory will heighten the terrorist threat.
The democrats will no longer be able to simply obstruct and say no, they now have power and will be creating a record that can be used against them in 2008. The republicans must return to the policies and ideas that delivered the majority to them in 1994, and it will be much easier to attack the democrats now that they are the majority.
To repeat myself, we are in for some interesting times in these next two years. Will the democrats further polarize this country ? I have very serious doubts that they can do anything to unite this country. Too many harsh words and too many attacks have made the climate an unsuitable atmosphere for there to be any trust that is necessary for bipartisanship. Will they misread what this election tells them ? Are we in for two years of gridlock ? Stay tuned, time will tell.
To those of us who watch things closely, the next two years will be interesting years. We will learn early on what the democrats intend -- whether they want to solve problems or use their new won power to persecute those who have bettered them in the past. Even more important, we will learn very quickly whether we will lose whatever edge we've built in this war on terror, and whether we should all learn French and buy our burkas now before prices go up.
My guess is yes, at least to the extent that they can still run against Bush and Iraq. But two years hence and with two legislative sessions with them in majority on record that may not be quite so easy as it was this time. I won't go into the laundry list of complaints that seems to have alienated the conservative base, although the size of government and illegal immigration figure large in that. But using those as exemplars of the rest, it turns out that "compassionate" conservatism wasn't really conservatism at all.
But the real problems were Iraq, Iraq, and lastly, Iraq, and the use that was made of it by political opposition both abroad, in the U.S. media, and in the Democratic party. When you're involved in a long-term project such as Iraq the most important thing is to show progress. Even the setting of artificial milestones effects that, and once the obvious ones - the Iraqi constitution and the vote for the new government - were past, the entire affair appeared to stagnate, full advantage of which was gleefully taken by the media. That's not a problem with the military, it's a problem with communications. IMHO, of course.
Whatthehey? Sorry for the double post. Sorry for the double post.
I don't think this is exactly it. I think many (conservative) people like it when Federal spending comes to them, but tend to be dismissive of it when it goes to someone else. That pretty much creates a dynamic where not a lot of change looks to happen when it comes to spending.
True. But if not him, there would've been something else. Foley resigned immediately and yet they still played it for a couple of weeks. You couldn't get that kind of press on any kind of Democrat scandal.
You're right. But, remember....Democrats don't make sense; they emote.
No question Tubba will not have a smile on her phony, cosmetically altered face two years from now.
There probably won't be a rise in most other stocks, especially pharmaceuticals, defense contractors, and tobacco, to name a few.
Any pharmaceuticals left to short? They have been down for years now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.