November 08, 2006
The Morning After
Well I just suck at election prognosticating, don't I?
In a national mid-term election billed as a battle against the way the War in Iraq is being waged and against Republican scandals, Democrats waltzed to an easy reversal of power in the House of Representatives and what many expect to be a slim majority in the Senate.
The Democratic Party is to be commended for their victories, and their candidates are to be congratulated.
What remains to be seen, however, is what Democratic electoral success will mean to our domestic and foreign policy.
Domestically, the farthest reaching effect may be upon those that are not elected to office but appointed, as the Democratic majority will be able to shape who is appointed to federal judgeships, including any Supreme Court vacancies that may occur at least until the 2008 election cycle. There are of course some responsible moderate judges to choose from, but I feel that a strict, historically-grounded interpretation of the Constitution is needed on the federal level, and that is most often found in the kind of judges that Democrats are likely to filibuster.
Free trade is also going to be dead, and we can expect taxes to go up through a combination of new taxes and a refusal to renew the tax cuts made by the previous Congress.
We can also expect a "quagmire" as Democrats follow through on their promised "investigations" of the Bush Administration. Some of these are indeed warranted--I know for a concrete fact that the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) is as corrupt as it can be and engaged in illegal activity, as I have personally seen the evidence--and I feel that if the Administration did indeed break any laws they should of course be held accountable.
I fear, however, that honest investigations of deep-seated agency-level bureaucratic corruption I suspect exists will be ignored in favor of investigations of "brand name" targets. I fully expect Democrats to follow through on multiple investigations targeting the President and Vice President based not upon any actual criminality, but on the appearance of impropriety, with the goal of further weakening the Executive Branch and laying the groundwork for the 2008 campaigns.
But what concerns me far more than these domestic issues (at least for now) is what the election means internationally, specifically in the War on Terror.
I can respect the fact that a majority of American voters do not like the way the War on Terror is being conducted. I don't particularly like the way the War on Terror is being fought, particularly in the battleground of Iraq where al Qaeda and allied terrorist groups have joined with state sponsors of terrorism Syria and Iran in an effort to not only destroy any hopes of democracy taking root in the Arab world, but to rally the support of Islamists worldwide.
Fair or not, terrorist leaders around the world openly cheerleaded for Democratic victory. Leaders of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Islamic Jihad and Hamas were among those that publicly stated that they thought much talked about Democratic plans for withdrawal from Iraq would embolden and spread fundamentalist resistance against the United States. al Qaeda's curiously silent Osama bin Laden had pulled for a Democratic victory for the same reasons in the 2004 elections.
Will the new Democratic leadership take stock of these comments and attempt to understand why the terrorists cheered them on to victory? Recent history and breaking news alike suggests that they will not. Nancy Pelosi has already this to say about the War on Terror in Iraq:
"Nowhere did Americans make it more clear that a change is needed in Iraq ... we can't continue down that catastrophic path," she said. "Mr President, we need a new direction in Iraq."
Pelosi and other Democratic leaders such as Charles Rangel and John Murtha have made clear that their "new direction" is a vision of withdrawal, without apparently registering that such a plan would embolden and spread terrorism, as the terrorists themselves have clearly stated:
Many Democratic politicians and some from the Republican Party have stated a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency there.In a recent interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, stated, "The jihadists (are) in Iraq. But that doesn't mean we stay there. They'll stay there as long as we're there."
Pelosi would become House speaker if the Democrats win the majority of seats in next week's elections.
WND read Pelosi's remarks to the terror leaders, who unanimously rejected her contention an American withdrawal would end the insurgency.
Islamic Jihad's Saadi, laughing, stated, "There is no chance that the resistance will stop."
He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would "prove the resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States."
Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would "mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America)."
My greatest fear in Iraq is not for the American military, which overwhelmingly wants to stay engaged and finish the mission, but for the 26 million people of Iraq who face a dire future in the hands of a "cut and run" Congress.
If Democrats are able to force a retreat from Iraq, the existing sectarian violence will likely devolve into a full-fledged civil war that the still-weak Iraqi security forces will be unable to stop or perhaps even slow. The possibility exists for Iraq to fall into full-fledged tribalism, with widespread genocide a distinct possibility. If this comes to pass, the United States will have abandoned the Iraqi people twice in two wars after asking for their support, at the cost of tens of thousands of their lives. Neither they, nor any other nation on earth, will have any reason to trust commitments America for a long time to come.
Terrorism, instead of being defeated, will have proven to be an effective tactic.
That may be the ultimate legacy of Nancy Pelosi and Democratic control of the House of Representatives if the liberal leadership has its way. We can only hope that the Democratic moderates who won most of last night elections can steer their leaders from the rear.
If they cannot, our foreign policy will, quite simply, encourage further acts of terrorism, as the terrorists themselves have made abundantly clear.
Update: Well, that didn't take long.
Update: And it gets worse, quickly:
"America is offering political, financial and logistic cover for the Zionist occupation crimes, and it is responsible for the Beit Hanoun massacre. Therefore, the people and the nation all over the globe are required to teach the American enemy tough lessons," Hamas' military wing said in a statement faxed to news organizations in Gaza.
Well Confederate Yankee props to you for at least giving me the conservatives point of view for the past long while.
Posted by: Jswanny at November 8, 2006 11:27 AMThe more I think about this election, the more I am changing my view on it. At first I was upset, but now I am thinking that now that the Democrats have control of the house and maybe the senate, lets see these plans they have screamed about during the election.
I am no prognosticator, but if the Democrats cant pull off all these amazing things they are claiming they will be able to do. How do you think they will fare in the 08 Presidential Election?
I mean n ow it is put up or shut up time! So as they say the proof will be in the pudding.
Posted by: 81 at November 8, 2006 11:46 AMEveryone is mashing the teeth today and anticipating the most horrible of things. But stop and think. The Democrats can not pass any new tax legislation unless Bush signs it. Now he is a liberal and likely would. In fact, I wonder if the previous conservative congress was keeping a check on this idiot. As to not renewing existing tax cut, the Republicans should have taken care of that when they had the power. Instead, they simply spent like there was no tomorrow. That is what I feel the real issue was and not the Iraq war. I am sick to death of the job the Republican party has done on those of us that supported it.
We may now have the best of all governments, one that can do nothing.
Posted by: David Caskey at November 8, 2006 11:46 AMbut if the Democrats cant pull off all these amazing things...
Just a single one of them -- 100% inspection of shipping containers, will prove to be intractable. The larger ships can hold in the range of 4,000 40' containers (the largest over 7,000).
If you spend just 1/2 hour on each container (an absurdly low number if you want to do real inspection of contents rather than just inspection of paperwork and seals), it takes 2,000 man hours.
The dems will soon find out that their 100% inspection fantasy results in our ports becoming parking lots for container ships that start stacking up like cord wood.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 8, 2006 12:41 PMFree trade is also going to be dead, and we can expect taxes to go up through a combination of new taxes and a refusal to renew the tax cuts made by the previous Congress.
Oh, get real. Did you think our massive deficit would magically vanish if the Dems had lost big? Whether you feel the spending was justified/reasonable or not, taxes going up is a given. Even many Repubs in Congress were iffy on continuing Bush's tax cuts. The only thing Dem losses last night might have done is allowed Bush to juggle the books until the end of his term. Now he's gotta face his own music.
We can also expect a "quagmire" as Democrats follow through on their promised "investigations" of the Bush Administration. Some of these are indeed warranted--I know for a concrete fact that the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) is as corrupt as it can be and engaged in illegal activity, as I have personally seen the evidence--and I feel that if the Administration did indeed break any laws they should of course be held accountable.
Then why condemn it as a 'quagmire' before it even starts up? We all know a) there's massive corruption in this administration and b) a GOP-run Congress will never, ever, ever exercise oversight. How dare those Democrats make Congress do its job!
I fear, however, that honest investigations of deep-seated agency-level bureaucratic corruption I suspect exists will be ignored in favor of investigations of "brand name" targets.
Sometimes, where there's smoke, there's fire...
I fully expect Democrats to follow through on multiple investigations targeting the President and Vice President based not upon any actual criminality, but on the appearance of impropriety, with the goal of further weakening the Executive Branch and laying the groundwork for the 2008 campaigns.
Well, in every gov't ethics course I've ever seen (and my job requires a number of them, regularly), the appearance of impropriety is usually an _explicit_ reason for an investigation. Maybe if they weren't such unrepentant screwups, they could get the benefit of the doubt. But not Bush.
Posted by: legion at November 8, 2006 03:03 PMWell, in every gov't ethics course I've ever seen (and my job requires a number of them, regularly), the appearance of impropriety is usually an _explicit_ reason for an investigation. Maybe if they weren't such unrepentant screwups, they could get the benefit of the doubt. But not Bush.
I'm sure you would be all for investigations into Reid then? I'm sure that you will call for the immediate resignation of Jefferson as well? Were you as interested in why all those FBI files were found in the White House?
Oops, my bad. They're not Republicans, and so the perception of impropriety has different rules. Sort of like listening to liberal bloggers talk. If you heard the exact same language from your Minister, you would be shocked and disappointed, perhaps even mad because you had high expectations. With the liberal blogger, you also had expectations and his language didn't surprise or anger you because they didn't do anything out of character, so they get a pass.
If there are "real" issues, investigate them - regardless of party affiliation. Punish the wrong doers - regardless of party affiliation.
Just run investigations the same - regardless of party affiliation. Clean out ALL corrupt politicians and bureaucrats - regardless of party affiliation.
Too bad "tolerant, non-judgemental" Democrats choose to run legal investigations based on political profiling rather than based on the actual wrong doing.
PA - I've thought the same myself. 100% inspection would tie up ports and put a huge economic strain on the shipping industry.
Roots,
Guess again. If there's reason enough to warrant an investigation, then by all means Reid should have the same scrutiny as Frist, DeLay, etc. Considering that those investigations are being carried out by the (still-GOP-run) Justice dept, I fail to see how the election results come into play at all. And Jefferson, as every single lefty I know or have spoken to via the 'net agrees, is a slimebag who should be in jail rather than DC.
Too bad "tolerant, non-judgemental" Democrats choose to run legal investigations based on political profiling rather than based on the actual wrong doing.
Really? Name one current investigation the Dems are running. Now guess the number of ethics complaints the Congress has looked into under GOP rule...
Posted by: legion at November 8, 2006 05:03 PMYou might want to take a look at actual voting records before deciding us Ds are all bunch of antiwar wimps.
Same thing with trade. Considering that Bush' actions have been much more anti-free-trade (raised tarifs twice) than Clinton (NAFTA), shouldn't you be wailing at Bush for being anti-free-trade?
Oh, yes, I know Bush lowered the tariffs again, after WTO action, but at the very least, he deserves scorn for politicizing the issue, riling our allies, and paying time for the govt to handle the WTO case.
Let me get this straight. The overwhelming majority of troops want to stay in Iraq because "dozens" of them were interviewed by a WP reporter? Talk about silly extrapolations.
I think you'd find that our soldiers' feelings about the war, if you polled every single one of them, would resemble the feelings of the population at large, which seems to be that 33% are against the war, 33% support it, and 33% are immersed in their own cozy ambivalence.
