The Broad View

Muddled in the Middle

Pundits and talking heads can never resist trying to summarize complex events in one pithy -- and usually completely wrong -- takeaway. After a few days of floundering around in unfamiliar territory, i.e., Dems triumphant and Republicans on the run, the media narrative is developing that Democrats took Congress by running conservative candidates (in other words, "not-Dems") and that the "sensible middle" of the electorate has asserted its perennial power in American politics.

Anything, it seems, to avoid admitting that liberal, progressive positions on nearly all the issues were winners. At the very least, movement conservative positions were roundly rejected. Personally, I think the Overton Window of political possibilities has just undergone a major shift back toward the left.

It will take dynamite to blast the old, reflexive memes out of the media's grab bag of cliches. It's time for Democratic spokesmen to learn how to herd these guys. For instance, here's Tweety interviewing Jon Tester last night:

MATTHEWS:  And you think that there‘s a way to protect Social Security, improve Medicare, Medicaid, create higher minimum wage, opportunities for tax relief for people who pay for college tuition, the whole list of agenda items the Democrats have been talking about? 

TESTER:  I absolutely do.  I think it‘s just a matter of priorities and prioritizing your expenditures, and I think we can do it in a fiscally responsible way so we‘re not borrowing our kids‘ future and opportunities away.  I think it can be done.  It‘s about priorities, though.  We balance the budget in Montana every time we go into session, and I think we need to start looking in that direction back in Washington, D.C., for this country overall. 

MATTHEWS:  Do you know a way to balance budgets without cutting spending or raising taxes? 

TESTER:  Well, I think it‘s about priorities and making sure we get the biggest bang for the buck.  And I know that that‘s easier said than done, but that‘s what has to happen.  Is there going to be some cuts down the line?  Probably.  That‘d be my guess.  But I think ultimately, if you‘ve got the right priorities, you can do those kind of things with minimal affect on the population. 

MATTHEWS:  You know you‘re in a political party that‘s not famous for cutting spending. 

TESTER:  Well, I mean, like I said, I‘ll go back and I‘ll do some best to represent the people of Montana and the middle-class folks in this country.  And we‘ll do it in a fiscally responsible way.  People do it at their kitchen tables every morning.  We do it in the state government here.  We need to do it at the federal level.

Tester's answers were very good, but Matthews still managed to put him on the defensive while at the same time trotting out -- and perpetuating -- that old wheeze about tax and spend Democrats.

Tester was smart, but he could have been brilliant if he'd reminded Matthews that it wasn't Democrats spending like drunken sailors for the past six years, squandering the surplus built up by the last Democratic administration. I'd also give bonus points to anyone who asks Matthews if he really prefers tax cuts for Paris Hilton over affordable health care for everybody.

Every time these idiots replay a tired tune from their Top 40 Dem-Bashing Hits they should be reminded immediately and firmly that they're wrong, outdated, that we won't let it pass anymore and besides, Dems were elected to clean up the messes left by unchecked Republican rule.

Buh-bye, Rummy

With Bush striding out to throw Rummy under the bus within hours of his party's "thumping" at the polls, we see a beaten man still obeying the Rovian imperative to turn weakness into strength. Once again, as if on cue, pundits are quick to describe Bush as "decisive", "taking control of events" and "dominating the news cycle."

Rumsfeld's fate was sealed as soon as word leaked of the Military Times' editorials demanding that he be fired. If not sooner. Yesterday's broad repudiation by the voters of the administration's disaster in Iraq was merely the door hitting Rummy in the ass on his way out.

To my mind, Rumsfeld has always been a sideshow, a subsidiary objective in the quest to rid our nation of Bushism. So I suppose the question for me is this: Am I satisfied to see a humbled Bush change his policies toward the better, no matter how he'd prefer to spin the changes?

And I have to answer: No, not really. Bush and his administration have a lot to answer for in matters both ethical and legal. The buck doesn't stop with Rumsfeld on much of anything beyond the piss-poor plans for Iraq. The policy decisions, implementation and personnel decisions that resulted in Iraq, Katrina, Plamegate, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo all come from the Oval Office, not the Pentagon. The collapse of our diplomacy in the Middle East, Korea and with half the world is the result of foreign policy decisions made by the White House.

That brings us to the Emperor Palpatine, the real Sith Lord, Dick Cheney.

At this afternoon's press conference, Bush was asked about Cheney and he was quick to dismiss the idea that he'd lost confidence in ol' Dead-eye. Of course, he said the same thing about Rummy last week. It won't be at all surprising if Cheney is suddenly diagnosed with some new health crisis necessitating his stepping down. Either that, or he will become as reclusive as a batty old uncle in the attic.

Watching Bush today at his press conference, I was struck by his staccato delivery and defensive demeanor. I do believe his bubble has finally been pricked. It was as if he was blinking in the light after a long, dreamy slumber. Then Poppy came and woke him up and read the riot act to Junior and sent him some no-nonsense operatives to bail him out once again. Robert Gates joins Bush consigliere Baker to remind Junior that, sooner or later, reality must intrude even on the most pleasant fantasy.

I think it was also pretty clear that the good ol' boy, dumb-as-a-post shtick is just that -- an act designed for consumption by a specific stratum of the electorate. Bush is no dope. He was articulate enough.

So while I agree with Nancy Pelosi and Bush that Dems should seek areas of agreement with the administration in order to go forward, I am not in such a forgiving and forgetting mood that I think we should bend over backwards. And I am still very troubled by the implications inherent in this gang getting a pass on war crimes, crimes against the Constitution, and incompetence amounting to criminal negligence.

Update: Billmon reminds us of Gates' hazy role in the Iran-Contra scandal.

As the smoke clears...

The Good:

Dems firmly in control of the House and armed with a clear mandate for change. The Senate, as of this writing, about to tip over to Dem control. McCaskill's win in Missouri is particularly satisfying.

The Bad:

Disappointment in several races including Ford in Tennessee and, in my neck of the woods, Pete King's tenacious death-grip on NY-03.

The Ugly:

Joe Lieberman. The Senate Dems' failure to vigorously support and campaign with Ned Lamont (with a few notable exceptions) will come back to haunt them. Lieberman will be rubbing their noses in it even while he crows about the triumph of his brand of independent-minded bipartisanship. There is no doubt that he will be throwing his vote to the Republicans on a host of important issues. He will wield his seniority like a club and squeeze deference from the Dems by threatening to leave their caucus. Worst of all, we'll have to hear that nasal, constipated whine on all the talk shows for the next six years.

I expect a thorough post-mortem of the Connecticut race in the coming hours and days. I believe Lamont was overwhelmed by a constellation of factors and hurdles. Lamont was a neophyte, and his decision to take a rest after the primary was simply terrible. Lamont needed every minute of every day to hone his message and introduce himself to Connecticut voters. Going off on vacation gave Lieberman a clear week to dominate the campaign landscape. Lamont, fairly or not, was perceived as a one-trick pony. The lukewarm support from Senate Dems, coupled with their repeated affirmations of personal friendship with Lieberman, were key factors in my opinion. Also key was the overt and covert support of the Republicans.

Another factor in Lamont's defeat, I believe, was the support of the netroots. The netroots made Lamont, and it unmade him. I doubt it could be quantified, and it's only a gut feeling I have. Nevertheless, I think there was a certain percentage of Connecticut voters who resented the idea that outside forces were pushing them to vote for Lamont. These voters all read and heard the stories of liberal bloggers driving Lamont's ascendency, raising money nationwide to affect a local election. I think the perception of outside influence tilted a crucial number of votes back toward Lieberman. It's an echo of Howard Dean's defeat in Iowa.

Update: I'd like to clarify that last graph. I think there's no doubt about the growing power and value of the netroots to the Democratic Party and progressive causes in general. FDL has a transcript of some of Howard Dean's remarks at the National Press Club this morning. It reads, in part:

The netroots community can be very proud.  They’re playing a bigger role.

Without the blogs, Jerry McInerny and Carole Shay (NH-1), would not have won. Entirely grassroots effort, without support form the Party, including us.

A big deal.

Here’s an even bigger deal. As you know, robocalls, flyers, low-ball election techniques. We knew about that instantly because of the blogs.  We are not sure (Repubs) did it more than in the past, but we knew about it faster.  Updates every 10 minutes from people who called 1-888-DEM-VOTE. (or whatever).  We were able to get lawyers to polling places immediately.

The instantaneousness of the blogs, of people who read the blogs, who get that information to us, is a huge improvement over 2004.

Dean is correct. It is a big deal, and a good thing too. So why do I think it backfired in Connecticut?

Well, of course Lieberman helped stoke the impression that wild-eyed liberal bloggers were swarming over the state lines to somehow unfairly influence the voters' decisions. I don't think it mattered -- or it got lost in the noise -- that it was home-grown Connecticut bloggers who were the primary movers of Lamont's campaign.

When high-profile bloggers show up from out of state and become familiar faces at the candidate's appearances, it just furthers the outside influence meme that Lieberman eagerly peddled. At times it seemed as if "bloggers" became another word for "agents provocateurs". Meanwhile, I don't think I read a single news story about Lamont that didn't mention bloggers and their influence on his candidacy.

Lamont needed the race to be about how Lieberman was Bush's candidate. Lamont had to define himself as the people's candidate, not the bloggers' candidate. I always got the impression that he was such a decent man that he couldn't instinctively go for the political jugular. Joe had no such problems.

Let's face it, Joe's constituency among Democrats is older, more conservative, rigid about Israel, and wouldn't know a blogger if they tripped over one. What were they thinking when they opened the NYTimes or the Hartford Courant and read about bloggers championing Lamont and dissing Joe? Enough of them stuck with Joe, even if they don't like the Iraq situation. With Republicans crossing party lines, it was more than enough.

The day will come, eventually, when netroots politics are the norm. Until then, bloggers and netroots activists must walk a fine line between helping their candidates and helping them enough to lose.

Enemy combatants

Four waggish, smart-ass women sitting in my living room (with Jillian Johnson calling in from an undisclosed location for updates) watching the returns...

MSNBC announces that the House goes Democratic, and that Bush will have a press conference tomorrow morning.

We wonder what he can possibly say. One of our cohort says, "He'll just declare all the Democratic reps enemy combatants."

It seemed quite funny in the moment.

Not to be missed

I'm lifting this from Hullabaloo, where it was promoted from comments, because it's just too beautiful not to share and share again:

'Twas the Night Before Mid-terms

'Twas the night before mid-terms
And all through the House
Speaker Hastert was ranting
The filthy old louse

"Tomorrow they choose, and the future is clear.
We'll be handed our asses by the voters this year"
"Coach" Hastert was rattled, his confidence lost
For Nancy Pelosi would soon be his boss!

And Bill Frist with his scalpel, and a VERY scared cat
Wondered why all the public thought him such an asshat.
An irate America arose with such clatter
That even Chris Matthews gave up his weak blather!

Away to the polls we all flew like a flash,
And showed Dub the meaning of a voter backlash
The results were disputed by spinmeister Snow
But America just said "the bastards must go!"

When who should to my wondering eyes should appear
But a feisty Jack Murtha with a case of cold beer.
Wes Clark on his left flank, Charlie Rangle his right,
I knew in a moment, it would be a long night!

Their losses now certain, our future so bright...
It's time to pay up KKKKarl, starting next Tuesday night

Gone Chafee, Santorum, Jim Talent and Burns...
Plus Kyle and Dewine, 'cause America learns
Gone Hayworth and Northrup and Christopher Shays.
they'll all lose their house seats in a matter of days!

And Nancy and Harry, they'll go straight to their work
Of fighting George Dubya, the pustular jerk!
Bush, laying a finger upside of his nose
Took a huge snort of........well, you know how it goes...

Bush sprang to Dick Cheney, when "Darth" gave Dub a whistle
As the Democrats swamped them both like a "nucular" missile!

And I heard Cheney growl as Bush cringed at his side
"Be prepared you dumb asshole for a real nasty ride....."

by Verse | 11.06.06

The day before Election Day, from the inside

Jillian Johnson's working at the Santa Barbara Board of Elections, surely among the most highminded in the nation. She shares this in an e-mail:

I've been phoning all day.

And, no...not through MoveOn. Not through any political party. Not to make Robo-Calls.

I've been working in an Elections Office these past several months and part of my job today was to be on the phone all day to try to remind people that they forgot to sign their absentee ballot when they sent it in. I had sent out hundreds of letters stating that fact for the past month, but, for some reason or another, many have just not bothered to show up at the office to sign their absentee ballot.

So I was doing follow up calls.

I've had people yell at me "No..you're lying. I signed it." then hang up.

I've had no luck finding good phone numbers for voters. Either old numbers not updated or false ones given out.

I've had older folks sigh heavy sighs of regret when they tell me they can't get down to either their polling place (to vote provisionally) or the office to actually sign the ballot. They are bed ridden, blind or handicapped to the point of relative non mobility.

I've had several "Bless you for calling."

I've had numerous "Thank you for reminding me! I completely forgot."

I've had a few "it's too inconvenient. Just forget about it."

I don't know how many other counties try their darndest to make voters votes count and take that "extra step" to ensure just that. I'm surely proud of my county. It's been an honor and great privilege to have worked for my county, for my Country.

Now...go out and vote. Just remember to sign your absentee ballots. I can't give everyone a reminder call.

Vote early and often — just push the little yellow button

Debra Bowen, Democratic candidate for California's Secretary of State, told us about this the other night on a blogger conference call. Brad Friedman follows up:

It seems there's a little yellow button on the back every touch-screen computer made by Sequoia Voting Systems, that allows any voter, or poll worker, or precinct inspector to set the system into "Manual Mode" allowing them to cast as many votes as they want.

Concerns about the flaw were first reported some thirty days ago to California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson's office by Ron Watt, a Tehama County, CA precinct inspector who has been a poll worker in the county for the last fifteen years. And yet, as recently as a radio interview last Tuesday, McPherson — who has been crowing about having the country's most stringent security process for voting systems — denied he was aware of any security issues with Sequoia systems...

There's more at The Brad Blog.

P.S. As if you hadn't guessed, McPherson is a complete disaster.

Mark Fiore's satire cuts close to the bone

This short series of Mark Fiore animations at SFGate nails political advertising. Laugh...and weep.

Voting machine failures — do your duty!

The drumbeat of reports from around the country of touch-screen voting machines failing during Early Voting continues to grow. These aren't "glitches." These are failures...

If you read nothing else today (and tomorrow, and the day after that), read The Brad Blog. The problems we can anticipate next Tuesday only escalate.

Brad reminded me the other night that we cannot take a break on or after November 8. There will be problems all over the country (he will be reporting them), and we can weigh in with all sorts of help for our beleaguered fellow-citizens.

And keep a very close eye on the returns in your own district. Don't assume anything. If you thought a race were going to be decided by 200,000 votes and it's decided by only 100,000, that could indicate that there's been a stealth bleed. Every anomalous thing must be checked and double-checked. And as an American, it's your absolute duty to see that that happens. Know who your elections commissioner is, and be ready to do battle.

But before you do any of that, you must do the first thing that is an obligation of citizenship. You must VOTE!

---

Fellow Santa Barbarans, let's not be too complacent. We use the Diebold AccuVote Optical Scan voting terminal. I'm assured by the folks who know that every last security precaution recommended here is followed, and I trust my sources. We are fortunate to have an upright elections commissioner who runs a tight ship. Not everyone is so lucky. But still, keep a sharp eye out.

What does Osama want?

George Bush says that if the Democrats win next Tuesday, the terrorists win. That's why there's been an escalation of violence in Iraq, say administration people and their cable news surrogates: to reinforce the goals of the "get out now" people — and thus advance the terrorists' cause.

So, if there's no major terrorist activity (beyond the sectarian violence in Iraq) between now and Election Day, does this mean that Osama wants the Democrats to win, and won't risk a November surprise because it could flip the "National Security" switch? Or if there's no November surprise does it tell us that BushCo has effectively shut Osama down? (Yeah, right.)

Or does it tell us that Osama is just hanging out in his cave, a flicker of amusement in his eyes and on his lips, watching us duke it out and knowing that it's all a bunch of blather that makes him no never mind?