Reflecting on the midterm elections

[StrykerFSU]

With Rumsfeld's removal we are starting to see the affects of the election and I was wondering what some others were thinking. Were the Dems successful in framing the debate about Iraq? Were the Dems' gains just another example of the 6th year itch? After 6 years of complaining will the Dems be able to put their money where there mouths are or are we headed for 2 years of gridlock and then doing it all over again in '08? Also, why is no one talking about the new Democrat members like Heath Shuler (pro-gun, pro-life) who are decidedly more conservative than the Dem leadership?

I think that the change in House leadership might be a good thing for the Republican Party. For one, I think the fragmentation within the Democratic Party will become even more apparent as they take leadership as well as showing just how far out of touch Pelosi & Co. are from the mainstream of America. Second, the Republicans will be reenergized to recover their losses in 2008.

[mholtz]

I heard an interview with the San Francisco Chronicles Washington bureau chief. He said that there are a ton of Pelosi constituents that are up in arms that she has been forced "to the center". They are calling for things like cutting of funding to the pentagon if they don't get out of Iraq and even impeachment of the president.

What Pelosi is thinking is that this was a rebuke of the republicans, and a mandate for the moderates, not a mandate for radical liberalism.

It's my hope that Pelosi will realize that the reason she is the first female speaker is because of independants and moderates (like me) not because of liberal democrats.

[Karl Lynch]

I think the change in House leadership might be a good thing for America.

[Campbell]

I think the change in House leadership might be a good thing for America.

I agree with Karl, and in my opinion this election doesn't appear to be so much a victory for the Democracts as it is a loss for the Republicans. In that, I feel a lot of Americans simply voted against the incumbent Republicans rather than voting for the Democrats to see some kind of change in government.

[sohotrightnow]

1. Rumsfeld was going to be gone regardless of the outcome of the election. GW even said as much. He met with Robert Gates this past Sunday and the reason he did not fire him beforehand was because he did not want to deflect attention away from the elections.

2. Pelosi will not press for impeachment proceedings. She has stated this twice already. What good would that do at this point?

3. The selection of Gates is huge. You will hear the talking heads over the next few days state that this is a huge shift in approach to the war in Iraq. It seems to me that the Republicans are FINALLY swallowing their pride and admitting they were wrong in their approach to this war. Bush has perhaps seen the light and realized that you can't play favorites and keep people who are more detrimental than helpful. It shows he also listened to somebody else besides Cheny in making this decision. I definitely believe GHWB played a role in GW's decision to fire Rumsfeld and bring in Gates. If GW's dad had his way he would also recommend that he get rid of Cheney as well. I also would not be surprised to see Karl Rove be shown the door. They don't need him any more to spread hate and lies about Democrats. It didn't work this time around.

4. How else are you going to win in North Carolina? Of course he has to take those positions on those issues! Why do you think Santorum lost besides the fact that he is crazy? Bob Casey is a pro-life Democrat, so Santorum can't pull out the "he likes killing babies" card.

5. Let me guess what happens today on Faux News...Hannity or O'Reilly is going to say that the terrorists are happy with the results of this election and they are going to opine to no end about the moral decay of America now that Pelosi and her San Francisco values are now in control.

[Beta]

Us liberal/moderates are watching this election, and cackling on our evil mountaintop discussing abortions as we eat kittens.

[Zeuslax]

One of the big questions to answer is how the Republicans will run their side of the aisle in the house. Will they try to argue their points and win the American public or will they follow a scorched earth approach? Tough to guess at this point in time. Will actual work get done? This election was definitely a referendum on the president and the current policies.

Now we'll have to wait and see the response from the looming Iraq report (Jim Baker led). We will hear a lot of talk about this in the coming weeks.

[peterwho]

I think the message is: We're tired of a majority party that doesn't have the backbone for a political fight and an opposition party that expresses only criticism. We're tired of extremists and special interest groups setting the direction for government. We're looking for leadership and action, not the stalemate that has existed for the past several years.

The question is: Will the new focus of the Democrat Party be a) to introduce solutions to today's problems (terrorism, immigration and border security, the strategy for the war in Iraq, the economy, etc.) or b) to empanel a series of tribunals whose sole purpose is to keep the focus on politics for the next two years as leverage for the 2008 presidential election?

My hope is that is will be the former.

There are those who are comparing this with the 1994 swing of power. However, I don't see the equivalent of the Contract with America detailing the specific goals for the Democrat's first 100 days in power.

[Zeuslax]

We have two other looming questions to deal with, that just didn't come up because this election cycle was so hotly contested.

One: What are we going to do about the corporate spending on political campaigns. Wal Mart was the largest contributor this election. Over 1.2 Billion dollars was spent nation wide. That is out rageous.

two) What are we going to do about the new electronic voting machines. There is no accountability. If no one has done it I highly recommend watching the HBO documentary on the subject. Mostly stuff you already knew, but chilling and sad.


When are these issues going to be covered by anyone but Lou Dobbs?

[peterwho]

3. ...seems to me that the Republicans are FINALLY swallowing their pride and admitting they were wrong in their approach to this war...

5. ...Hannity or O'Reilly is going to say that the terrorists are happy with the results of this election...

Response to 3: For those of us old enough to remember, you can replace "Bush" with "Johnson", "Rumsfeld" with "Westmoreland" and "Iraq" with "Vietnam". The national sentiment is the same (although, the violent demonstrations aren't an ingredient, today). The difference is that Bush has actually made the change. Then, it took a change in the President to resolve our involvement.

Response to 5: I bet you're right and Hamas has already provided the headline: "Hamas calls on Muslims to attack U.S. targets"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15617830/

[schelitzche]

I have to agree with those who see it as a loss to Repubs and not a gain for Dems.

Coming from a conservative, the biggest reason this has happened is because the Republicans had all the power they needed to end the situation in Iraq, get a good drug plan together that would help those in need, and get the country back together. Instead they wasted their time trying to deal with the people complaining rather than get things done.

I am still a firm believer that a majority of American believes in a limited government, personal responsibility, and great supporters of the US. The only problem was the Repubs couldnt get it done.

As far as 2008 goes, if McCain runs, hes the next president. There is not a person on the left who can defeat him. Hopefully by that point, people quite fighting about which party is in charge and start worrying about actually using the most powerful military in the world to finish a war we have been fighting like a third world country.

[StrykerFSU]

How else are you going to win in North Carolina? Of course he has to take those positions on those issues!

I would think that this new breed of moderate Democrat take their positions because that is what they believe and not because those views would help them get elected in a particular state. I was kind of hoping it signaled a change in the party away from the "which way is the wind blowing" politics of Kerry and Billary.

I don't think we can take the election results as a very strong mandate for the Dems. Historically, a party that is out of power can expect to take about 30 seats during 6th year elections which is almost exactly what we see here. If the American people were truly "fed up" with the Republicans wouldn't we have seen the Dems make even larger gains? Also, at least four of the House seats were vacated because of scandal and not the removal of an incumbent.

Hannity or O'Reilly is going to say that the terrorists are happy with the results of this election

You are probably right but the military leader of Hamas just released a statement calling for all Muslims around the world to attack American targets because we protect the Israelis. Could be a coincedence but it also might signal an emboldened enemy who views a Democrat led US Congress as being weak.

[Beta]

You are probably right but the military leader of Hamas just released a statement calling for all Muslims around the world to attack American targets because we protect the Israelis. Could be a coincedence but it also might signal an emboldened enemy who views a Democrat led US Congress as being weak.

Haha it's a day that ends in "y", which is why they're calling to attack Americans.

[sohotrightnow]

Oh my Allah. Yeah, I am sure that is why they are going to now attack Americans. Just like the reason there were more deaths in Iraq in October is because the insurgents were trying to influence the elections. Stop the madness please and stop listening to Bill-o.

[mholtz]

As far as 2008 goes, if McCain runs, hes the next president. There is not a person on the left who can defeat him.

I'll ammend this. If McCain can win the republican nomination, he'll win. I thought for sure he was a shoe in for that nod, but the current president's hatchet man (Rove) called people in South Carolina, and asked them how they felt about "John McCain's Black Baby" (adopted child from south east asia).

The problem we are facing was never more obvious than in Connecticut where the liberals on the left fought to oust a centrist in Lieberman. The problem is that most people don't vote in primary's. What do they care. The people that DO vote are typically the extremists. If a centrist can't get the nomination of his party for president, they won't win.

[/code]