Who Elects These Democrat Idiots!?!

The Dems are in crisis. The Republicans have not controlled the White House, House, and Senate since Eisenhower. They made big inroads in state congressional races. They would have even lost Democratic NJ without the help of a court. Democrats controlled the House for forty years, and have lost it to Republicans for at least 10, and quite probably 12-20.

The Democrats have not controlled the Senate by voters for quite some time. They controlled it by a party switch. It was regained by vote. Most people on this board should have been able to run against Jeb Bush and win Florida. The Dem's backed the only horse that could not win (Reno had the money). The surprise in Oklahoma governor had more to do with a campaign manager for Henry named Barry Switzer (who could get elected Pope in Oklahoma) and country democrats turning out in force for a measure banning cock fighting.

If you look at trends, states that were Democratic since statehood are turning Republican Texas, Oklahoma, the South, the Midwest. The States that were Republican are staying Republican. Massachussets has a Republican Governor.

The other basic problem they have now is money. The rules have changed so that Barbara Streisand can't give $200000 in soft money. The Republicans have a better base of $2000 donors. The Democrats have relied upon soft money on a larger basis. I think they are poised for a huge loss in 2004 if they don't figure something out.

 

So are the Reps. I think that both parties are continually in crisis, due simply to the nature of party politics. That constant fluidity is only exacerbated by the looming war and by the economy tanking.

In California's last race for governor, incumbent Gray Davis was extremely vulnerable. But instead of running a moderate that had appeal across party lines, the Republicans fielded a conservative candidate that lacked wider appeal and lost.

The problem for both parties is similar and is partially due to the nature of the primary process. To win primaries, candidates have to appeal to party activists and to special-interest constituencies. That puts a premium on purity of doctrine. But to win general elections, candidates have to appeal to the moderate swing voters who are often repelled by precisely that kind of over-ideological candidate.

California has 36 million people and is clearly trending towards the Democrats. If that party gets a lock on Ca., which is increasingly possible, they will automatically start each Presidential election with 20% of the electoral votes necessary to win.

 

He's a Tory.

The guy is way too aristocratic and politically incorrect (babes, booze and guns) to be Labour.

Those burnt-out cynical spies that Michael Caine used to play, they were Labour.

Imagine the internal battles among the Republicans if the Iraq war turns out to be a disaster and if the economy tanks further.

The problem with this thread is that it ignores current events. Those events are going to be what shapes the next election and will probably define the direction of both parties in the future.

Personally, I think that things look extremely ugly right now, and the public could very easily blame Bush and the Republicans unless events unfold positively. If they don't, it will be the Republicans who will be looking for new leadership and direction.

 

I think we expect that politicians should be so virtuous that politics should never come into it. We know that we need to do something with Iraq. If not, we will be rocked by other horrible events right here on our own soil.

I argue that Bush has to do it now. It appears that the economy will not stabilize until we feel confident again. Part os this means that we must feel good about the state of homeland defense. We must deal with terrorism. IraQ is a great place to start. If Bush waits, the economy may not recover on his watch. Re-election would be less likely. If, however, we do it now and win (which we will), te economy will have some time to recover. We would have dealt with a major terrorist to boot.

Guess what folks, politics will always play a big part in .....well......politics. At least until we shange the name.

 

Interesting comments...

Very correct about the spys, Bill.

But the "ugliness" I see entirely stems from intenational perceptions and the UN. In reality, any "takedown" of Iraq will be easy, lasting about te weeks.

If there's any "ugliness," it will most likely be the result of Iraqi bio-chemical attacks. However, the centralized character of the regime and the hierarchical military command structure militate against its successful deployment. And if there are such attacks, it will only go to the point of SH's danger and the perception of a dangerous world generally ("I told you so!"), further marginalizing anti-War sentiment, anyway! SO where's the downside, Bill?

The fact is that since Vietnam, the numbers of casualties the US experiences or inflicts on noncombatants is progressively and impressively down. Do you see a downside, Bill, that I don't?

To judge politics by the results of last years elections, Republicans will win in 2004 if the War against Terrorism continues to go well.

What other "current events" are we ignoring, Bill?

--Orson

 

Re: Interesting comments...

International perceptions and the UN are important.

I hope you're right, but unlike you I lack the ability to see the future.

I would think that mass casulties would be a clear downside.

Any number of things could go wrong.

1. Diplomatic and PR dangers including possible major damage to the UN and the NATO systems. A terrible precedent in which the US will be far less able to criticize other nations' aggressive military adventures. (If we have the right to invade other nations in order to promote our own interest, then so do they.) Conceivable formation of an anti-US coalition of some sort among those nations who fear the unilateral use of US power. Greater international fear and distrust of the US generally. We could end up doing France's (and Osama's) work for them, isolating ourselves while they create hostile European and Islamic blocs.

2. The danger of creating a situation in which other nations in the "axis of evil" fear that they are next in line for invasion, prompting them to build nuclear weapons and other WMD as quickly as they possibly can to create a deterrent. That may be the motivator for North Korea's sudden blatant nuclear and missile developments, as well as today's news about Iran's nuclear weapons project.

3. The danger of Iraq's oil fields going up in flames, creating a major environmental disaster as well as likely driving up the price of oil still higher.

4. The danger that Saddam's Republican Guard will fight more doggedly than expected. Saddam's government is clan and nepotism based. It is based on the country's Arabic-speaking Sunni minority. These "Saddamites" are people who stand to lose their own power and influence when Saddam goes, and who will likely face reprisals from those they have oppressed for so many years.

5. The danger of being drawn into street fighting in populated urban areas should the Iraqis decide to make a stand. That's a form of fighting in which our technological advantages are of least use and where the dangers of substantial US military casulties are highest.

6. The associated danger of heavy casulties among Iraqi civilians.

7. The spectre of having to occupy Iraq for an extended period of time after Saddam Hussein is removed. This military occupation will not be popular.

8. The problem of the Kurds. They are apt to demand their independence in return for having supported us, and the Turks would almost certainly send in their own army to prevent it. So how do we keep the Kurds cooperative without Iraq breaking up and/or the Turks intervening?

9. The problem of the Shiites. The majority of Iraq's Arabs are Shiites, who have been suppressed for years by Saddam's Sunni dictatorship. They will inevitably expect to assume power in a post-Saddam Iraq, but that could easily result in the country tilting towards Iran and possible reprisals against the Sunni minority who were Saddam's beneficiaries. So how does the US promote democracy while ensuring that only "good guys" win?

10. The clear danger that either a desperate Saddam, or others sympathetic to him or who might want to exploit the situation for their own benefit, will try to bring the war home to our shores and to the shores of our allies, in the form of 9-11-style terrorist spectaculars.

I suppose that any of you can imagine more potential dangers if you make the effort. My point isn't that all of these things are inevitable. It's that some problems such as these are real possibilities. We may have a cheap, fast, effortless victory, but we clearly might not. Nobody knows, which is why I say that the situation is both dangerous and unpredictable right now.

The economy, for one. Even without the dangers associated with war and terrorism, an "It's the economy, stupid" campaign might work very well for the Democrats if the average voter doesn't start seeing economic improvement soon.

The 2000 election took place before the internet bubble had completely burst, when people were considerably more optimistic than they are today, and it was the closest election in US history. The midterm elections took place after 9-11 when patriotism and security concerns were paramount. By 2004, economic worry may have created a different kind of security concern, and perceived mishandling of the war/terrorism/diplomatic situation may have produced criticism of the administration.

It doesn't have to happen, but it certainly might. Republican overconfidence and hubris won't be what prevents it.

 

Our military is far, far, far, far, far superior. Sure, Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, but they have no Navy and no Air Force. Besides renegade attacks in the US, we have a greater ability to contain the war. Also, despite how it may seem, we do have Allies who will help here. THere is no way we will lose. The unfortunate thing is that we will lose American lives. But, Saddam must be stopped before he actually does impact the World.

 

Actually, the Republican party did not "field" Bill Simon. They were primarily split between Richard Riordan (who was the most likely candidate) and Bill Jones (the highest ranking Republican at the state level). If they would have focused on one or the other of these two, California would have elected a Republican governor. The Republican party virtually ignored Bill Simon, realizing that he was the least electable of the three.

The Democrats realized that a Riordan/Davis election would be disasterous (after all, their candidate was so bad, having tank the CA economy long before 9/11, that he was forced to run pitiful slogans like "you may not agree with everything I've done"). So the Democrats and the Davis campaign focus on slam ads against Riordan and promoted Simon. Without any support from the local or national Republican Party (but with plenty of help from Democrats), Simon won the Republican nomination. Republican leaders statewide weere shocked that he beat both Riordan and Jones (but Demos were not). Davis, who ran virtually unopposed, would not have been hurt by Democrats who voted Republican in the primary.

Simon's campaign against Davis was a textbook case of what not to do. Referring to questions in Simon's business practices, Davis' ads would state "If Bill Simon can't run a business, then how can he run California?"

Simon missed the opportunity to run the slogan of the decade: "If Gray Davis can't run California, then how can he run California?"

There is no " trending towards the Democrats" in California. Democrats control the executive branch and every major political office in Sacramento. They hold a commanding lead in both the senate and assembly and on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

John Bear has rightfully poked fun at California higher education administration with regards to state licensing and questionable schools. The CA Dept. of Education is an absolute mess, having suffered from the resigniation of one superintendent and the gross mismanagement and lack of leadership and ethics of his successor. I'm hopeful, but not optimistic, that her successor will be better.

Charter schools could have been step in the right direction for K-12 education, but the CA Democrats have been working hard to destroy them as well.

Tony Pina
CSU San Bernardino

 

Re: Re: Interesting comments...

Well, Bill--my point exactly. My worries over the war are quite few. Almost every point you make concerns post-war problems. These are the same problems that have exorcised me for past year. And I agree--they are real and worrisome

You mention neptotism and sunni loyalties giving the Republican Guards incentives to fight. Fine. But if they can't coordinate their fighting, and if they are bypassed or surrounded? Then what? They die or give up! What do you think happend to Noriega in Panama? THIS is the better historical analogy--politically and militarily. The result? A brief siege--low casualties.

As for street fighting in Bhagdad, US strategy will be--as with bio-chem threats--to simply circumvent them. This is the safest, wisest course. Again, the war is the EASY part. Keeping the peace, that is considerably tougher. The only good fortune for this future are the same ones James Madison foresaw for the US--the contending interests will often neutralize each other!

Mass casualties? Do I "see into the future?"
NO. I simply observe US military operational trendlines since Vietnam, which are at historic lows for modern warfare. (the subject of diminishing US and civilian casualties has been sussed out by those IR savants at Oxford, see www.oxblog.com) Add to this, the policy of having journalists on the frontlines. IF S**T happens, we will know about it, eventually.

Could I be arguing that for the first time in modern history, politics is more dangerous and frought with unmanagable uncertainties than the battle field?--Perhaps....(I'm chewing over this sudden deep thought.)


Finally, Bill worries:
"Diplomatic and PR dangers including possible major damage to the UN and the NATO systems. A terrible precedent in which the US will be far less able to criticize other nations' aggressive military adventures. (If we have the right to invade other nations in order to promote our own interest, then so do they.)"

Here I disagree--as does most informed opinion, e.g., The Economist. The US has announced "Bush Doctrine" of preemption of the new threats posed by terrorism (Sept. 2002). But this is only a partial justification, not even initial justification, for a war against Iran.

Far from being the "terrible precedent" bill imagines, Iraq signed a Treaty of Truce requiring disarmament in 15 days in 1991--it was enshrined as UNSC res 681(?). It's been 12 years, and progress is still being measured in infinitesimals. The Treaty has been violated routinely and with near impugnity (save for the no-fly zones which have resulted in weekly and often daily retaliation).

Under International Law, the US has every right to re-engage this unfinished war against an unvitiated, ruthless, prevaricating enemy opponent. Pursuing it hardly disables the US from criticising orther nations aggressive adventures! The truth is this isn't arbitrary aggression! The shoe is obviously on the other foot. SO, Bill, you are wrong. (I call this "inverted perception:" for example on FoxNews Tuesday, John Gibson's show, a French spokesman called--to Gibson's stunned rage--Saddam merely a "tinpot dictator." He's obviously much more maniacal than that; the simple history of his rule (e.g, Tens if Billions in funds diverted to WMDs), attacks, and invasions prove that!

There will be no "arbitrary attack" on a "sovereign nation" by the US, as too many (mostly French addled) imagine; the fear has no correspondence with reality. The fact is that Iraq is in international violation of nearly all its international treaty obligations--the US is merely being the instrument of itsenforcement. (The UN inspection "process" now looks farcical: witness the rapid turn of public opinion in Britain, now supporting Blair, after having bucked him all last year! US opinioin is also shifting.)

Bill goes on: "Conceivable formation of an anti-US coalition
of some sort among those nations who fear the unilateral use of US power. Greater international fear and distrust of the US generally. We could end up doing France's (and Osama's) work for them, isolating ourselves while they create hostile European and Islamic blocs."

I think I've answered the unrealism of the first two sentences: US power will not be excercised with undue unilateralism (Democracies don't attack other democracies); any "fears" are more imaginary than real. They will pass in the glow of liberation and as the job of rebuilding a country into a nation that's no longer an international pariah gets underway.

As for Bill's last sentece, most foresee a reconciliation with Germany. Schroeder obviously played the Anti-American card in a desperate re-election gambit; their economy continues to shrink, the left keeps losing local and provincial elections, while many feel betrayed by Schroeder's broken promises, and taxes mount higher and higher. Time or Newsweek ran a story last week that compared Germany to Japan--a truly unprecidented crisis of post-war German confidence: the post-war German miracle endeth in an intractable Japanese-style no-growth funk?

By contrast, the anti-American pose runs throughout the French, even to center-right Chirac. The French are incorrigible, and most believe France--not the US--will be isolated in the end. The stubborn fact remains that this is now a unipolar world: The US calls the shots. Opposing the US is one thing, but betray (your treaty obligations with) the US at your peril--and I for one hope that this "peril" redounds upon France in spades.

--Orson
PS The irony is that the"Peace" movement, aided by France, has made war and consequent civilian casualties more likely, and vastly diminished the chance for a peaceful coup: the blood of civilian casualties may well be blamed on France! Not the lead combatant...the US. This follows from the fact that "Peace" and international division pursued by the reckless French has given aid and succor to Saddam. There was a book published in France in 1992 or '3 entitled "Our Ally Saddam." And then last month (Feb 10, Reuters): "A senior Polish official on Monday criticised a plan launched by Germany and France to avert war in Iraq as a badly-timed publicity stunt which would play into the hands of Saddam Hussein....
'In reality, at this stage, this amounts to support for Saddam Hussein,'" said Marek Siwiec, national security adviser to President Aleksander Kwasniewski, echoing harsh U.S. criticism of the scheme [to treble the number of weapons inspectors]."
"Peace" means supporting Saddam--who tortures Olympic athletes.

 

This last point got BLanked out as my 10 minute editing time timed out.

Bill--you state that mere fact of US policing may result in a surge by rogue states rushing to get nuclear weapons.

Possibly--but this is really the result of waking up to reality after oversleeping; wishing it wasn't so, which was Clinton's unstated policy, did not make the threats go away! Witness the failure of UN nuke inspections in North Korea; witness the many former Clinton advisors to say, to varying degrees, that Bush is right to pursue a War on Terror and to finally confront neglected threats. Throughout the 90s, the US Department of State listed Iran as the world's worst supporter of terrorism. If the US as World's Policeman simply doesn't show up--the looming threats go unmitigated.

Perception doesn't drive reality--it's still very much the reverse because reality is what it is.

--Orson