ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

It’s (Semi) Official

By Matthew Yglesias on Nov 8, 2006 at 10:16 pm

Webb wins.

It’s worth pointing out that this election ought to demolish the Myth of Karl Rove. From the GOP perspective, while losing five senate seats is worse than losing four, losing six is much worse than losing five. Since the 2006 climate clearly wasn’t favorable to the Republicans, the obvious thing to do would have been to concentrate resources on Republican incumbents running in red states — Virginia, Montana, Missouri, and Tennessee. I feel like there’s good reason to think the GOP could have won two out of those four had they focused. Instead, they tried an ambitious strategy of picking off Democratic seats in New Jersey and Maryland, two solidly blue states.

Interestingly, Rove made the exact same error in 2000, engaging in an absurd late-game effort to campaign in California. He then lost the election, only to wind up with Bush securing the White House through a series of incredibly unlikely events plus a partisan Supreme Court. Then in 2004, he did something similar with weird last minute gambits in Hawaii and New Jersey that put his candidates perilously close to losing Ohio (and with it the presidency) not withstanding a decent-sized popular majority. Learning nothing from his good fortune except an unhealthy sense of infallibility, he proceeded to do it again and then, finally, have things genuinely blow up in his face.

Politics

Bottom of the Ticket

By Matthew Yglesias on Nov 8, 2006 at 8:13 pm

Heartening as last night’s big sweep was, the volume of change in House seats was actually rather modest compared to the swing in public opinion and underlying voting behavior. The cause, in no small part, was pro-Republican gerrymandering. As you’ll recall, the CW a few months ago was that Democratic recapture of the House was impossible because of these gerrymanders. Nonsense, of course. No gerrymander makes you immune to public opinion, good candidates, and well-run campaigns. But where the lines are drawn matter — they turn narrow wins into small defeats, or big wins into medium-sized ones.

That’s why it’s so heartening to see these state-level wins that will put Democrats in a position to draw some more favorable lines in the future. Even better, state legislators get to draw their own lines so as to entrench victory. This is part of the problem with all arguments of the form “really it would be better to lose in Year Y so as to be better-positioned for Year X.” As long as you don’t use your governing power so ineptly as to totally discredit your political party (see Bush, George W.; Delay, Tom; etc.) one of the main consequences of political power is that it gives you the power to set up a situation favorable to . . . maintaining power.

Yglesias

Democratic Iraq Policy

By Matthew Yglesias on Nov 8, 2006 at 5:39 pm

It’s oft said Democrats have no plan for Iraq. There’s certainly some truth to that (the situation is, after all, seriously screwed-up and leaves us with no good option), but there actually is an official Democratic Iraq policy endorsed by the House and Senate leadership along with the ranking members (soon to be chairpersons) of the House and Senate defense, foreign affairs, and intelligence committee along with the House and Senate defense appropriations committees. Read their September letter here. Key excerpt:

We propose a new direction, which would include:

  1. transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection;
  2. beginning the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq before the end of this year;
  3. working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources;
  4. convening an international conference and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq’s sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort.

So there you have it in case you’re curious.

Climate Progress

The New Congress needs to Do MORE than just Debate Climate Change and Hold Hearings

By Joe Romm on Nov 8, 2006 at 4:08 pm

What do the election results mean for climate policy?

Congressional Quarterly (subs. req’d) reported earlier this week:

If Democrats take Congress, the energy industry can expect an effort to repeal tax breaks, a renewed debate on climate change, and a push for policies that promote alternative fuel sources and crack down on price-gouging, say top Democrats on the House and Senate energy committees.

dingell_headshot_2004.jpg“Renewed debate” is a scary phrase, since debate won’t solve the dangerous threat posed by unrestricted emissions of greenhouse gases. The article quotes top House Energy and Commerce Committee Democrat John D. Dingell of Michigan:

Dingell also said he expected to hold hearings on climate change, an issue with an impact on auto emissions. But any action would likely have to come in the form of international cooperation, he said.

We need more than hearings and debate. Certainly the ultimate solution to the climate problem requires international cooperation. But the other major industrialized countries have already begun taking action under the Kyoto protocol. The U.S. needs to take action NOW because we are the richest and most polluting country–and have no credibility with the rest of the world when it comes to pledging action internationally.

Even if the Bush Administration vetoes any serious climate legislation and continues its policy of inaction, Congressional action will send a strong signal to the rest of the world that we are ready to join the fight once we have a new president in 2009.

Politics

Gates called for direct talks with Iran.

By ThinkProgress on Nov 8, 2006 at 3:00 pm

President Bush has nominated former CIA Director Robert Gates to replace Donald Rumsfeld. WSJ reports, “In the summer of 2004, Gates and former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski co-chaired a task force sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations that argued for opening a dialogue with Iran. The task force’s report ["Iran: Time for a New Approach"] contended that the lack of American engagement with Iran had harmed American interests, and advocated direct talks with the Iranians.”

UPDATE: The Federation of American Scientists notes Gates’ Iran/Contra ties: “Owing to his senior status in the CIA, Gates was close to many figures who played significant roles in the Iran/contra affair and was in a position to have known of their activities.”

Yglesias

The Dilemma

By Matthew Yglesias on Nov 8, 2006 at 2:26 pm

The dilemma Democrats are going to face on Iraq is this. One element of the party is willing to say that the emperor has no clothes, that the war is a disaster, and that we should end it as soon as we can. Another group has gotten very good at saying that the war is a disaster, that the president is fucking things up, and then staying vague on what it is they actually want to do while simulaneously triangulating themselves away from the Democratic left. Now that Democrats have a measure of actual power, however, this moderate stance is going to be harder to maintain. Bush, after all, still holds all the real power over national security. What he’ll try to do is sucker members of the second camp into, in effect, blessing his Iraq-related decision-making and threaten them with vicious smear attacks if they refuse to do so. Byron York shows us the way it’s done:

Democrats are already circulating accounts of Robert Gates and Iran-contra. If there is a Chairman Levin, he will probably have a few questions. In fact, the Gates confirmation hearings will be an early test for Senate Democrats. They will undoubtedly realize that they need to suppress their desire to take an early scalp lest they face accusations of trying to undermine the troops and the war effort. But they’ll be conflicted.

York also goes on to post a strong message of support Gates has already gotten from former senator Sam Nunn. And that’s how it’ll go. Moderate Gates-supporters will be used to smear further left Democrats who think it’s unseemly to put (yet another!) Iran-Contra figure in an important national security post. Then they’ll wake up a few months later and see that with Rumsfeld gone, they’ve lost their license to simply issue vague complaints — they’ll have personally endorsed the new leadership.

UPDATE: I forgot to say what I actually think Dems should do about Gates. My initial read — subject to revision as we learn more — is that they should take advantage of the presence of some hard-core wankers in their caucus. Blocking Gates is problematic. Giving Gates a seal of approval is also problematic. So, if Webb wins, let Gates come to the floor and let him be confirmed by 49 Republicans plus some combination of Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and Dick Cheney. That way Bush gets to keep running Bush’s war Bush’s way on Bush’s say-so and Bush gets to keep reaping the blame when things keep going poorly.

UPDATE II: Um…no, this is moot. I’m on a conference call with Senator Levin and he says Gates will be handled by the lame duck congress.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up