Spanky's Place

1 - Though I'm not one of your favorites, I'm with you on this. We deserved it because we were slack on our promises. Maybe Newt can help in '08. I saw Poison Pero's post this morning and I agree that it was a "bloodbath". Let's see if Pelosi and Reid are really serious about bipartisanship. They haven't wanted to do that for the past 6 years. It's easy to talk about it when you have power again.

2 - It's not a conspiracy if you go and tell everyone about it.

I did vote, though here in MA we didn't have any "big" races, except perhaps the one for governor. I'd score that one as a victory for civility in campaigning and a defeat for Rove's fear and smear tactics. Deval Patrick's win returns us to one party control here in MA. That situation concerns me, but he's a better choice than a Republican team that didn't seem very interested in working with the legislature.

On the national scene, I think the Republicans were punished partly for the war, but also for failing to exercise oversight. Bush's plan for the war in Iraq is clearly not working, and people see that a Republican-controlled congress is doing little to control Bush's excesses.

Lastly, if president Bush would like civility, I'd suggest he stop labelling the opposition as siding with terrorists. It's perfectly possible to disagree with GWB and still love America.

3 - @Chris, I hope I didn't offend you. You clearly are one of my favorites (take a look to the right in the Politics and History category). I just figured that the 4 links I posted would most likely be the "first out of the gates" with commentary on the results.

@Bruce, you are right about the terrorist labeling thing. I'm a major right winger; I can disagree vehemenently with folks without calling them terrorists. I wish some of the major players in the (minority) conservative press could do the same. Just because somebody doesn't agree with GWB's decisions regarding Iraq does not make them a supporter of terrorism.

However, most of the solutions/ideas I've seen floated by the liberal left seem to, in the long run, promote the growth of evil and terrorism. Does this mean that Liberal=Terrorist? Absolutely not. I think it simply shows that these solutions/ideas are simply not completely thought out to their logical conclusion. Does this mean that Liberal=Unthinking? Again, absolutely not.

-Devin.

4 - I think Rep. Mike Pence put it best: <b>"We didn't just lose our majority, we lost our way."</b>

The Republicans took the beating they needed to take, and the only consolation we can take in it is it didn't happen in a presidential election year.........Imagine waking up to the reality of a Democrat House, Senate and President winning.

That said, if the Republican Party doesn't prove to be an effective minority party in the next two years, and allows itself to be pounded we will wake up on November 5, 2008 with President Hillary Clinton, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader ??? (it won't continue to be Reid, but will be a Lefty).
----------------
So, lets keep an eye on a few issues:
1. The U.S. hasn't been hit by a successful terrorist attack since 9/11 ---> I'd put bets on this one not lasting after we drop our guard down.

2. The economy is humming........Employment is incredibly low and the stockmarket is huge --> Tax hikes, business bashing, minimum wage increases will put a dent in this.

3. A border wall was voted for and we were actually starting to crack down on illegals --> The wall will never be funded, and enforcement will be stopped. Oh, and you can count on an amnesty bill hitting Bush's desk. AND HE'LL SIGN IT.

4. Two outstanding SCOTUS justices were put on the bench (Roberts and Alito) --> Justice Stevens and Ginsberg are in their last years on the bench, and there's no way they will be replaced by Roberts/Alito-types.

THESE ARE THE ISSUES WE GAVE UP ON NOVEMBER 7, 2006.......All of which the American people will pay dearly for.

5 - I wish I had posted what I was going to (just didn't get around to it): no matter which side of the fence you are on - and you are on one or the other aren't you? - get out and vote. Ignore the fear-mongering about lost or stolen votes: it certainly has been going on for more than 6 years!

Anyway, one can always hope that the Democrats solution would be to commit to changing the policy in such a way that we can help Iraq get on its feet and get out ASAP. Develop diplomatic ties, put the necessary troops, equipment and training there and get the job done. Don't be half-assed about it, don't prolong things and don't just pull out. One can hope....

But I'm not as well-versed politically as you or Chris. And I think I'm more moderate than either of you. I wouldn't want the personal morals of either Bill Clinton or GWB forced on me, if you know what I mean.

6 - Everyone is going to "Wednesday-Morning Quarterback" this thing so....

Hindsight always being 20/20, I think the Republicans could have kept this together if the top 3 people leading the country weren't so damned arrogant. Rumsfeld and Cheney are very arrogant and stand shoulder to shoulder with Bush which allows him to be arrogant freely with no one in the wings to balance it. That's what pisses me off most about our President. It's one thing to have resolve and stick to your guns (and I do support that) but it's another thing to be so aloof about it.

Dubya could have taken a different tone and addressed America with a little more(or at least some) humility regarding the war in Iraq and his fellow Republicans that have seemed to help destroy this mid-term election. Surely the outcome would have been different last night.

It's no wonder we got our asses handed to us last nite. And the worst is yet to come.

7 - Speaking as one of the designated Liberals (and thank you, I'm quite proud of that label -*grin*), I think there are a number of things the GOP should learn from this election.

First, and foremost, they have gone from being the party of small government to being the party of bloated pork-barrel government.

They have gone from being the party of personal responsibility to being the party of no accountability.

From the party that wants government to stay our of our personal lives to the party that wants to control what happens in our bedrooms, our doctor's offices, and - most pathetically - wants to control how we die.

They've wrapped themselves in so-called family values, but then been shown to have no idea what morality truly means (moral people don't lie, cheat, and steal).

I think it's safe to say that you aren't happy with any of those things, Devin, and I don't think you should be. I think many moderate Republicans either held their noses and voted Democrat or simply stayed home out of disgust.

As far as the war in Iraq, as you know I supported the invasion but have been very critical of the way the war has been managed. It has been a political exercise rather than a military one (the Pentagon study showing that even with 400,000 troops we should expect major problems somehow leads to a decision to go in with 150,000?!?). I think it's become quite obvious that this war is - as it currently stands - a defeat in the so-called War on Terror (a more accurate title would be War on Islamic Terrorists, but we can't have that because it's not politically correct). Iraq is the best recruiting advertisement al Qaeda could ever wish for, and our inability to control them makes them look powerful. What's the answer? I don't know. I DO know that "stay the course" has never been a good answer, and unless some grownups (read: old-fashioned Republicans) start running the Dept of Defense we aren't going to GET a good answer. Rumsfeld must go, and his replacement should not come from the neo-con movement.

PS Can someone PLEASE explain why Conservatives think Nancy Pelosi is scary?!? Please? I truly, honestly don't get that. The very idea makes me borderline hysterical. And I did pay attention in history class. Is it just the fact that she's a Liberal? Really? 'Cause I gotta tell ya, the Conservatives are not exactly in a position to throw any stones these days...

8 -

That reminds me: Do you remember that fantasic blog post by the guy who misses the old-fashioned Republicans? My fervent hope is that this butt-kicking (as you rightly labelled it) wakes up the REAL GOP and they put the grownups back in charge. I want the Science Guys back. The Serious Guys. The Professionals.

(Note: This is what Rob is referring to: I miss Republicans)   -Devin

9 - @Devin, no offense - giving you a hard time!

@Rob - so you're saying that the Republicans have become Democrats? (bloated pork-barrel government, no accountability)

Regarding (Speaker) Pelosi, the term "San Francisco" is generally ahead of "liberal" when "we" describe her. Do you think the values of SF really represent those of a greater part of our nation?

Anyway, Rumsfeld is likely to resign: { Link } It should be a good thing. I don't necessarily think he's dragging us down, but I don't think the change could really hurt too bad.

10 -

Ahh, so she's a SF/Cali Liberal, and that's terrifying. Riiiiight. Since I know how ridiculous the overused "Massachusetts Liberal" label is (yeah, we're evil, we have the 3rd-lowest tax burden in the country, the best schools in the country, the lowest divorce rate in the country - *whew* - we'd better get this turned around fast...), I don't take that one very seriously either. The thing about SF that scares Conservatives is the fact that there are some gay people there who aren't ashamed of being who they are. And being afraid of that is pathetic.

Don't get me wrong - people from Cali are just a bit odd. But they're no further from the mainstream than the GOP's current leaders. The simple fact is that both parties elect their leaders from the stronger side of the party. And in both parties, our extreme brand of politics is forcing moderates out of power. We've had extremely conservative GOP leaders. We will now have liberal Democratic leaders. That being said, neither Pelosi nor Reid is exactly Teddy Kennedy. If HE were in charge, and you said he was scary, I wouldn't question you. I wouldn't agree, mind, 'cause I'm a Liberal - but I would see your point.

[aside: I don't seriously think that Devin is afraid of Nancy Pelosi because she comes from the capital of Gay Nation. I come from the capital of Red Sox Nation, and we're much more scary! ]

Oh, and no - Republicans haven't become Democrats - if they had, they would honestly believe they were right, instead of hypocritically claiming to be one thing while in reality being the opposite.

11 -

@Rob re:Pelosi as speaker - - The reason she scares me has nothing whatsoever to do with her being from SF. You've known me long enough to know I could not care less about somebody's sexual (as long as they leave kids alone) preferences. Not only do I not care; it is quite simply none of my (nor the government's) business.

Nancy Pelosi scares me because of her views on the Second Amendment, Abortion, the War in Iraq, Governmental Health Care, Federal control of Education, Immigration, and Minimum Wage.

I disagree with her positions on all of the above, and I fear that she will use her authority as Speaker to control the debates and voting of everything regarding said areas. And that, my friend, scares the hell out of me. I fear an America where guns are outlawed, abortion on demand (even for minors without consent of their parents) is legal and promoted, where we've run away from Iraq, where the government controls all aspects of health care and education, where illegal immigrants are not only welcomed but given preferential treatment over citizens, and the minimum wage increases as fast or faster than inflation. This may seem like an alarmist description, but I believe that is the logical outcome of her positions.

That doesn't mean I disagree with her on everything. I have to be honest enough to give her credit where due: her position on the flag-burning and no gay marriage amendment efforts (she was against both) was spot on.

-Devin.

12 - @Spanky: I knew you had substantive reasons, my friend - that's why I asked. Now I understand your point. I don't happen to agree, and I think your examples are definitely alarmist, but given those examples I can see your cause for alarm.

Speaking of federal control over education, if the Dems refuse to renew the President's massive federal education program, No Child Left Behind, will you cheer or boo? I'll be cheering, and I bet you will be too. I hope they don't get sucked into the trap of trying to "fix" it - it shouldn't be fixed, it should be taken out behind the barn and shot...

13 - I'll be cheering. This is and always was a serious boondoggle. I feel pretty much the same way about No Child Left Behind as Hanover Fiste does about Lincoln F. Sternn.

-Devin.

14 - @Chris - You say " so you're saying that the Republicans have become Democrats? (bloated pork-barrel government, no accountability)". Cute, but that is exactly what the Republicans have become in many cases. They have become what the Democrats became when they had had too much time in charge of Congress - more concerned about the pork they could bring back home to get themselves re-elected than about the good of the country. It isn't about labels or party names, it is about too much power corrupting, and now the Republicans have had the same thing happen to them that the Democrats had happen to them in 1994. But the Democrats have changed. They have had to. Just try and look at the deficit and government spending in the past five years and forget the label "Republican". Unless I miss my guess, what has been happening is not what almost any true Republican would want to have had happen in their names. Now is your chance though (by you, I mean Republicans), to shake loose from the gluttony of absolute control and take back the older reputation for fiscal responsibility. Nowadays, the Democrats are stealing that title away from you (isn't that amazing?)

15 - Yo, Devin. Check this out:

{ Link }

Some geniuses leaked the Democrats' secret plans. Drat!

16 - sorry I'm late to this one.

Devin: You wrote, ", within six months of being in office passed one of the biggest (don't forget retroactive) tax increases in history. Which set the stage for the recession of the 1990s. It took the Republican 8 years to recover."

I don't honestly remember a recession in the Clinton era. I went to Wikipedia to check it out, and couldn't find anything on it. There are entries for the late 80s recession, some references to a 1990-91 one, and the early 2000s recession, { Link } which says, "The U.S. economy had been expanding since late 1992".

Of course the difference between then and now is that Clinton's tax increases balanced the budget, while the current administration has just spent money that doesn't exist. Which some voters did seem to take notice of yesterday.

17 - @16 Ed -- beat me too it. Recession of the 1990s? ROFLMAO!

Better than Wikipedia: { Link } That's the National Archives. In 1999 -- at the end of the Clinton era -- a 29 year low in unemployment and a 93 straight months of growth. Now, conservatives are always quick to point out that Clinton was just catching the tail end of the even longer period of expansion that Reagan had started, and of course that Clinton had a Republican congress from 1994 on -- but they tend to ignore the fact that Bush Sr. had pretty much put an end to the Reagan expansion, and that Clinton re-started the expansion by putting budget cuts into motion when he took office, and that it was in 1995 -- with a Republican controlled congress -- that Clinton stood up and shut down the government to force congress to continue along a responsible economic path. Let me repeat: he shut down the government to force the Republican congress to drop their program of ideology-driven drastic cuts and adopt his program of more responsible cuts. And he succeeded. He drove the economy, not the GOP-controlled congress. He continued to cut the budget and fueled economic growth { Link }
And he did it without running up the record deficits that Reagan used to kickstart the expansion, and which Bush Jr. brought back.

Which isn't to say that Clinton did everything right. He under-regulated financial services and business in general, leading to a bubble fueled by "irrational exuberance" and to financial abuses a la Enron, WorldCom, etc. By the time Bush was coming into office, this was all well under way, so I don't blame Bush Jr. for it -- but Bush could have intervened to soften the impact by immediately enacting policies that restored trust and rationality to markets and financial institutions; but instead he stuck to ideology with his policies of corporate welfare, tax cuts for the rich, while soaking the middle class. The best we can say about the Bush years economically is that he has spent six years (so far) trying to get the economy back to almost as good as it was at the height of the Clinton expansion. The Dow Jones is at record levels, and unemployment is low, but broader market measures are still well below what they were, cost of living is way up, we have record deficits again, and we have a new bubble that has burst in housing, and record personal debt, alarming growth in foreclosure rates and lending and bankruptcy laws stripped of many of their basic protections for ordinary people, though I'm sure that the next time billionaire Donald Trump has to go into bankruptcy he'll do just fine. Alls this with a one-party government.

Doggone right they deserved to be kicked out of Congress on their butts.

(BTW: Not only did I pay attention in History class, but also in Economics, Political Science classes. Quite a few of them, actually. And more importantly, I paid attention in the 1990s.)

Moving right along...

If having someone like Pelosi as Speaker of the House scares you, I'm glad. Pay back, IMHO for a dozen years of far scarier GOP speakers, and six years of the scariest President in my lifetime.

Pelosi doesn't like the second amendment? OK. Neither do I. So what? It takes ratification of 3/4s of the states to make the second amendment go away. I certainly can't make that happen, and neither can Pelosi. You could fill the House and Senate with blue, and they couldn't make it happen.

And by the way, what do you think of the amendments that Bush is trying to do away with? The 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th and 8th are in far more danger right now than the 2nd can ever possibly be in our lifetimes. I really doubt that SCOTUS will go along with Bush on that -- they have thankfully ruled against him on his attempts every time so far -- but I'm quite happy that Pelosi is going to do whatever she can to protect us from erosion of those fundamental rights. The 2nd amendment makes us secure and strong, but those other amendments are the ones that confer the rights that make us "good". We need both, and we need them no matter what the threat from whatever the boogeyman of the day is. And no, I don't really buy that bit about the 2nd amendment making us secure or strong, but I know that a lot of people do buy it, and speaking only for myself: I'd happily concede the necessity of honoring the second amendment for all eternity in return for the same committment to the others. And we'll start when Pelosi and the Democratic congress repeal the recent act that gave the President the ability to repeal the right habeas corpus for any American citiizen at any time at any place, with no right of appeal.

I could go on, because there is much more that you have written that I strongly disagree with. But I don't have time...

Just one more thing: someone did bring up the ridiculous canard about "no successful terrorist attacks since 9/11", and I can't let that one go. Bush has declared a global war on terrorism. Global. So measuring success based on attacks on the US is the wrong yardstick. Bush himself has established the fact that its the global scorecard that matters -- and that happens to be one of the few things I think he's got right. By that scorecard, terrorist attacks have continued to go up. By that scorecard, the result of the Iraq war is a failure prima facie because by all accountings (from Bush's own intelligence agencies) it has created more terrorists than there were in the first place, and it continues to be the most signicant contributor to growth of terrorism worldwide. And hold on to your "cut and run" rhetoric, too. It's sad sloganeering that ignores the fundamental truth of what the Democrats are saying: that our current Iraq strategy is making things worse, not better, and our forces, funds, energy and our political clout (such as it is these days) can be better employed in other fronts in the global war of terrorism. We Democrats don't want appeasement of al Qaeda and we don't want to just stop combatting terrorism. We want to fight terrorism differently, and more effectively. And here's the thing that makes us really radically different: we want people to be able to measure what we're accomplishing. We won't settle for just trusting the President to just tell us whether or not we're winning. We won't settle for the just having the President imprison a bunch of bad guys. We won't settle for unsubstantiated claims that some attacks have been prevented. We want convictions in open court. We want proof that we're actually winning. And we believe that it can be done in a way that makes us safer yet is 100% consistent with our values and all those amendments that President Bush thinks are just acceptable collateral damage in this war. In this war for which he has not yet, to this day, actually explained how he defines victory.

18 -

Woof. Can I have some ketchup to go with this crow?

Thanks Richard, that is exactly why I wanted your take on this. I'll buy the first round in January. (Having now had my ass handed to me for the second time in two days -Ouch

@Rob re: Democrat's secret plans -- thanks my friend, I needed a good laugh.

-Devin.

19 - This adds nothing to the conversation, but did Rumsfeld just CUT AND RUN from his post...?

Sorry... couldn't help myself. Great discussion.

20 -

LOL - No problem.

Rumsfeld needed to go. Not only did (at least in my opinion) the American People not like him; but (and far more importantly) the troops no longer trusted him. I honestly can't put my finger on the "moment" or "decision" that cost him this trust; but the trust was most definately gone.

Now, I could Monday (or in this case Friday) -morning quarterback this to death; but I wonder if the election would have turned out differently had President Bush given Mr. Rumsfeld his walking papers earlier. It may have not have changed anything; but then again who knows?

Ahh well. No use crying over spilled milk. Democrats! Enjoy your victory, revel in the next two years; you have earned it. Here's looking forward to 2008.

-Devin.