Posted on 11/08/2006 8:14:07 PM PST by Checkers
The post-mortems are accumulating, but I think the obvious has to be stated: John McCain and his colleagues in the Gang of 14 cost the GOP its Senate majority while the conduct of a handful of corrupt House members gave that body's leadership the Democrats.
The first two paragraphs of my book Painting the Map Red --published in March of this year, read:
If you are a conservative Republican, as I am, you have a right to be worried. An overconfident and complacent Republican Party could be facing electoral disaster. Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, and a host of others could be looming in our future and undoing all the good we've tried to do.
It is break the glass and pull the alarm time for the Republican Party. The elections looming in November 2006 are shaping up to be disastrous for the GOP as the elections of 1994 were for the Democrats. Most GOP insiders seem unaware of the party's political peril. Some are resigned to a major defeat as the price we have to pay for a decade of consistent gains, which, they think, couldn't have gone on forever.
As cooler heads sort through the returns, they will see not a Democratic wave but a long series of bitter fights most of which were lost by very thin margins, the sort of margin that could have been overcome had there been greater purpose and energy arrayed on the GOP's side. The country did not fundamentally change from 2004, but the Republicans had to defend very difficult terrain in very adverse circumstances. Step by step over the past two years the GOP painted themselves into a corner from which there was no escape. Congressional leadership time and time again took the easy way out and declared truces with Democrats over issues, which ought not to have been compromised. The easy way led to Tuesday's result.
The criminal activities of Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney and Mark Foley were anchors around every Republican neck, and the damaged leadership could not figure out that the only way to slip that weight was by staying in town and working around the clock on issue after issue. The long recesses and the unwillingness to confront the issues head on --remember the House's inexplicable refusal to condemn the New York Times by name in a resolution over the SWIFT program leak?-- conveyed a smugness about the majority which was rooted in redistricting's false assurance of invulnerability. Only on rare occasions would the Republicans set up the sort of debate that sharpened the contrast between the parties. In wartime, the public expects much more from its leaders than they received from the GOP.
In the Senate three turning points stand out.
On April 15, 2005 --less than three months after President Bush had begun a second term won in part because of his pledge to fight for sound judges-- Senator McCain appeared on Hardball and announced he would not support the "constitutional option" to end Democratic filibusters. Then, stunned by the furious reaction, the senator from Arizona cobbled together the Gang of 14 "compromise" that in fact destroyed the ability of the Republican Party to campaign on Democratic obstructionism while throwing many fine nominees under the bus. Now in the ruins of Tuesday there is an almost certain end to the slow but steady restoration of originalism to the bench. Had McCain not abandoned his party and then sabotaged its plans, there would have been an important debate and a crucial decision taken on how the Constitution operates. The result was the complete opposite. Yes, President Bush got his two nominees to SCOTUS through a 55-45 Senate, but the door is now closed, and the court still tilted left. A once-in-a-generation opportunity was lost.
A few months later there came a debate in the Senate over the Democrats' demand for a timetable for withdrawal for Iraq led to another half-measure: A Frist-Warner alternative that demanded quarterly reports on the war's progress, a move widely and correctly interpreted as a blow to the Administration’s Iraq policy. Fourteen Republicans voted against the Frist-Warner proposal --including Senator McCain-- and the press immediately understood that the half-measure was an early indicator of erosion in support for a policy of victory.
Then came the two leaks of national security secrets to the New York Times, and an utterly feckless response from both the Senate and the House. Not one hearing was held; not one subpoena delivered. A resolution condemning these deeply injurious actions passed the House but dared not name the New York Times. The Senate did not even vote on a non-binding resolution.
Nor did the Senate get around to confirming the president's authority to conduct warrantless surveillance of al Qaeda contacting its operatives in the United States. Weeks were taken up jamming the incoherent McCain-Kennedy immigration bill through the Judiciary Committee only to see it repudiated by the majority of Republicans, and the opportunity lost for a comprehensive bill that would have met the demand for security within a rational regularization of the illegal population already here.
And while the Senate twiddled away its days, crucial nominees to the federal appellate bench languished in the Judiciary Committee. The most important of them --Peter Keisler who remains nominated for the D.C. Circuit-- didn't even receive a vote because of indifference on the part of Chairman Specter.
(The National Review's Byron York wondered why the president didn't bring up the judges issue in the campaign until the last week, and then only in Montana. The reason was obvious: Senators DeWine and Chafee were struggling and any focus on the legacy of the Gang of 14 would doom DeWine's already dwindling chances while reminding the country of the retreat from principal in early '05.)
As summer became fall, the Administration and Senator Frist began a belated attempt to salvage the term. At exactly that moment Senators McCain and Graham threw down their still murky objections to the Administration’s proposals on the trial and treatment of terrorists. Precious days were lost as was momentum and clarity, the NSA program left unconfirmed (though still quite constitutional) and Keisler et al hung out to dry.
Throughout this two years the National Republican Senatorial Committee attempted to persuade an unpersuadable base that Lincoln Chafee was a Republican. For years Chafee has frustrated measure after measure, most recently the confirmation of John Bolton, even after Ahmadinejad threatened and Chavez insulted the United States from the UN stage. Chafee was a one-man wrecking crew on the NRSC finances, a drain of resources and energy, and a billboard for the idea that the Senate is first a club and only secondarily a body of legislators.
It is hard to conceive of how the past two years could have been managed worse on the Hill.
The presidential ambitions of three senators ended Tuesday night, though two of them will not face up to it.
The Republican Party sent them and their 52 colleagues to Washington D.C. to implement an agenda which could have been accomplished but that opportunity was frittered away.
The Republican Party raised the money and staffed the campaigns that had yielded a 55-45 seat majority, and the Republican Party expected the 55 to act like a majority. Confronted with obstruction, the Republicans first fretted and then caved on issue after issue. Had the 55 at least been seen to be trying --hard, and not in a senatorial kind of way-- Tuesday would have had a much different result. Independents, especially, might have seen why the majority mattered.
Will the GOP get back to a working majority again? Perhaps. And perhaps sooner than you think. The Democrats have at least six vulnerable senators running in 2008, while the situation looks pretty good for the GOP.
But the majority is not going to return unless the new minority leadership --however it is composed-- resolves to persuade the public, and to be firm in its convictions, not concerned for the praise of the Beltway-Manhattan media machine.
Hugh Hewitt is a law professor, broadcast journalist, and author of several books including Painting the Map Red: The Fight to Create a Permanent Republican Majority .
The people around here are reeling and probably are looking at the couple of senate seats we could have had if it weren't for the Libertarians. That's not to excuse their behavior, but more to explain it. There's no reason to be calling names, especially 'Liberdopian', which is not only lame, but doesn't describe any Libertarian I know. (Personally, I have many issues with the Libertarian philosophy, but that's for another day and certainly isn't anything I'd call anyone names over)
Those people calling names are still blaming 'the people' for the problem, rather than looking inward. They look at the vote tallies and say 'If that Libertarian wasn't there, we'd have won', instead of saying, 'What did we do wrong that people wanted to vote for the Libertarian instead?'
That's a very short sighted way of looking at things, more akin to the way that many people at DU look at things. It is also a stage of the shock that one goes through when something like this election occurs. I went through it too...blamed the media, blamed the people, blamed my dog, yelled at the wife, and then took a step back and looked at what the bigger picture was.
Those folks just haven't seen the bigger picture. I can't promise that the Republicans will be able to see the big picture, but I'm hoping that they do and I'm personally going to try and do everything I can to get them to see it.
I'm hoping they will, but I'm just a hopeless optimist. :)
I see 4, unless we break out the IMs between a few of these guys and someone's sheepdog.
Seems to me that the Senate will still have a solid Republican majority till next year. Shouldn't the GOP act on this majority? What's to prevent them from using the next 2 months to ram through some judges, and actually implementing some of the things (border security, for example) we all want? If the situation were reversed, you can be sure the Dems would use these two months to great advantage. What could possibly be the downside to this?
Forgive me if I sound like a broken record, but I think it's because there weren't any Republicans to vote for.
Americans were given a choice between voting for a bunch of Republicans who have been acting like Democrats, voting for real Democrats, voting for someone else (and "wasting their votes") or not voting.
What do Republicans expect people to do when faced with such choices? It's amazing so many Repulicans turned out at all, given the pathetic state of our (allegedly -- and now previously) Republican-controlled presidency and Congress.
Am I a Monday morning quarterback? Sure. I'm okay with that.
My call: Republicans dropped the ball and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
Want more Republicans to vote? Offer some real Republicans to vote for.
The whole damn Republican Party is RINO.
That's your problem.
Hugh makes some good points here, though he neglects to mention the Harriet Miers fiasco, possibly because he made the mistake of supporting her when the rest of us were screaming to dump her.
He's not saying anything that hasn't been said by a lot of Freepers over many months, for which they have been scorned and castigated.
The first steps to 2008 have the President planning to get his immigration reform (amnesty) and tossing Rummy over the side, and Hagel and McCain talking about what other principles need to be compromised.
Talk about not learning from your mistakes.
"Boehner CANNOT be Minority Leader."
The entire House leadership must go as well.
Trent Lott MUST NOT BE ALLOWED to assume another leadership position.
He failed before and he is destined to fail again.
I don't have any problems with a libertarian leaning person like you, who has analyzed the situation and votes R because they are closer to his views than the other party. I am frustrated with the ones who voted for Libertarian party candidates, and cost us the Senate.
Is this the same Hugh that said the GOP was going to pull it out two days ago>
Personally, I prefer "libiotarian".
Perhaps the same thing that's been preventing them from doing this for the last six years?
I'm truly sorry, because it breaks my heart to say this, but the Republicans had the ball, and they dropped it.
Now the Democrats have it, and though I have even less confidence in them, they may well take this chance to run with the ball.
Imagine that! Actually doing something with a congressional majority!
What a concept. :^P
They didn't cost us the senate. The people voted for them because we didn't give them a reason to vote for us. That's our fault, not theirs.
Agreed. No more weak kneed losers in leadership positions.
Allen
"Seems to me that the Senate will still have a solid Republican majority till next year. Shouldn't the GOP act on this majority? What's to prevent them from using the next 2 months to ram through some judges, and actually implementing some of the things (border security, for example) we all want? If the situation were reversed, you can be sure the Dems would use these two months to great advantage"
Great point. Especially since the Lame duck senate will be the one approving Gates. If they can approve Gates why can't they do other things.
If you didn't listen to them, and instead pushed them away, they didn't cost you the Senate.
Pushing away those who would be your allies (not just Libertarians, but all true conservatives) is what cost you the Senate -- and the House -- and failing to keep the promises you made to those who trusted you.
We are NOT your enemies, but as long as you treat us like enemies, you will get what you ask for.
Congress never lifted a finger on Social Security.
"I thought the turnout on both sides was hugh for a mid-term."
It stuned my beeber.
He could have left that out. These guys have always gotten more credit than they deserved. Winning in 2004? Heck, they took a sure thing against an obnoxious moron opponent and almost turned it into a loss.
Have they learned anything? Mehlman's first comments were that the loss now provides an opportunity for bipartisanship by passing the comprehensive immigration reform (amnesty).
Right. I hope nobody plans on using these guys in 2008. Let them move on to their K Street sinecures or become loser talking heads like Begala and Carville and Morris.
Thanks for the ping!
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.