Final thoughts on mid-term election

Now that the election has been over for a few weeks, I thought I would offer up some final thoughts on what it all means. I spent a ridiculous amount of time watching, reading and writing about the election, so many things struck me as particularly poignant.

I found the whole media outcry and outrage over John Kerry’s comments amazing. Yes, he unleashed a goofy gaffe, but when taken out of context, it sounded a whole lot worse than when you listen to it in its proper context, it’s not nearly as explosive or insulting to troops as the GOP noise machine made it out to be……Hey, didn’t you used to be the Contract With America?……So much for the Republicans’ “October Surprise,” i.e. – Kerry’s gaffe. I have conservative friends who really thought Kerry’s ill-advised goof would “fire up the conservative base” and bring out the right wingers in droves to help the GOP retain control of part or all of Congress. Not this time……Is it me, or did some leading polls & pollsters turn out to be remarkably accurate? For instance, Stu Rothenberg, a respected Washington, D.C. pollster who frequently appears of CNN, predicted a 51-49 Senate, and lo and behold, that’s what we got. The Votemaster at www.electoral-vote.com predicted a Democratic majority in the House, predicting 231 Democrats, 198 Republicans and six ties. We still don't know the exact number in the House yet with a few recounts pending, but he was pretty close; and he too accurately predicted a 51-49 Senate controlled by the Democrats. Looks like these two guys will get lots of attention in 2008. The Votemaster also came very close to calling the '04 presidential election, so he's establishing a nice little track record - his site uses an incredible number of polls as a predictor, so it's not just opinion.

Anyone else heard about the 18,000 votes missing in Florida? It's a textbook example of why we need election reform. I urge all of you to write your legislators, both federal and state, and tell them that the time to reform is NOW. I can guarantee you that I will have lots and lots more about this very soon, complete with a form letter to write your legislators and more of what all Americans can do about this to demand reform. Why should we wait for the next electoral disaster or controversy to get something done? Our very democracy is undermined when we have such incidents. I'm sick and tired of hearing about problems at polls every election; people being denied the right to vote, machines not working, etc. It’s inexcusable, especially since there are two years between every major election. Has anyone every heard of rehearsal? How about a dry run?

What enrages me even more is right before and election, when I see stories in the news about election officials "anticipating major problems." I always ask myself, why weren't these problems anticipated months, if not years ago? It's high comedy that the U.S. Government is always sending people to other countries to monitor elections, yet we can't even take care of our own elections here.

Something else caught my eye during the election – Arizona is now giving away cash jackpots in order to get people to the polls. What a joke. Considering what went on at electronics stores this weekend, maybe offering a Sony PlayStation 3 would have been a better strategy. The fact that state governments have to entice people to the polls is laughable and inexcusable. It's another reason people around the world must be laughing their asses off at us – the most powerful and influential democracy in the world has to give away money to entice more people to the polls. In other countries, people are dying and fighting for the right to vote and have their voices heard, yet too many Americans take it for granted.

I have high hopes for the Democrats, now that they control both houses of Congress, but their success is by no means assured, nor is their continued control of Congress. As my friend Jim, a conservative, said to me right after the election, "It’s put up or shut up time for the Democrats now." Right you are, Jim. They've been complaining about the Republicans for so long and have been out of power for 12 years (save for a short time in the Senate earlier this decade), that it's time for the donkeys to deliver. And at times, what they will do is block President Bush from what he wishes to do. Opponents will decry it as "obstructionism," (many already have, like the bloated, gambling-addicted Bill Bennett) and sometimes that may turn out to indeed be the case, but I call it "checks and balances," one of the principles this country was founded on. Gone is the rubber-stamp, Republican-controlled Congress, that in most cases moved legislation right on through that Bush wanted passed. What's more, and I know it isn't fashionable to say it, but payback has got to be in the back of the minds of some Democrats, specifically when it comes to confirmation of Court of Appeals judges, and maybe even a Supreme Court justice. (There have been rumors that Justice John Paul Stevens is considering retirement, but I hope he holds out until 2009.)

I not so fondly recall the politically dead Rick Santorum, in 2000, saying that there was little reason to bring President Clinton's Court of Appeals judges up for a vote with an election looming. Honestly, that sort of hubris came back to bite the Republicans in the ass once George W. Bush was appointed president by the Supreme Court. Since then, Republicans have done nothing but bitch and complain about judges not being brought up for a vote. What goes around comes around. Who will turn the tide by turning the other cheek? Don't look for that from this Democratic Congress; Bush has done little with judges other than trying to push through extreme conservatively nominees, and he's met with little success. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out over the next two years.

The time for ethical reform is now, and I hope the Democrats take this very seriously. Americans want radical change to a political system rife with corruption, influence peddling and dirty money. So far, so good, as leading Democrats, from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Above, center pic, on left) to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (above, right pic) and also

Barack Obama (above, left pic), but once January rolls around, it's time for deeds, not words. I'm sick to death, as are most, of all of this corruption in Congress. It's time for dramatic reform, and I'm not completely confident that the Democrats will pull it off. Neither party has shown a willingness to completely overhaul our system to remove the influence of money. I'll have more very soon on ethical reforms in a separate post – my Wish List for this Congress. History has also proven that power corrupts, and Democrats certainly aren't immune. One of the biggest causes of the Republican takeover of the House in 1994 was a corrupt Democratic Party that had ruled the House for 51 years & that had many scandals of its own.



I get a kick out of hearing Republican pundits saying how "the Democrats will overreach." I don't know what they are basing that on, unless you look to the Republicans victory in 1994, when they tried to impose their political and religious beliefs on all Americans. U.S. voters mostly yawned, reelecting Clinton in 1996, and voting for Gore in 2000, but not getting the leader they wanted. Check out the clip above of Newt Gingrich, who made it his and his party's priority to railroad Clinton. Mission not accomplished.

The media "coverage" over Congressional leaders since the election has been pretty entertaining. I’ve already blogged about it at length, but the coverage has been a joke – chiefly the "liberal media" making a big deal about the power play between Steny Hoyer and John Murtha, whereas Trent Lott's selection as Senate Minority Whip has gotten very little play. In the last few days since Hoyer's victory, this "controversy" seems to have died down. Hopefully, Pelosi and Hoyer will find a way to get along – press reports have detailed how the two historically have not been the best of friends. But, since the coverage has been so ridiculous, it's hard to gauge how accurate this supposed rivalry is.

Of course, the biggest issue of all is the War in Iraq, and where we go from here. Almost daily, when I watch the news or read articles about the war and what politicians are saying, I think to myself, almost every time, "This is another Vietnam, you idiots!" I’ve said it before, and it bears repeating again - Vietnam analogies have been wildly overdone, but not always. As time goes on, the similarities grow more and more stark when you compare the two wars: seemingly no way to win; calls for more troops by politicians who are too afraid to say we're "losing"; a civil war in both cases (Iraq is headed there, if it isn’t there already); not knowing who we are fighting or who the enemy is; insurgencies in both cases; rising combat deaths for a cause that isn’t really supported by the American public (a trend that is increasing by the day); a bitterly divided public over whether we should be there in the first place; and politicians who support the war declaring that if we leave, America’s security will be threatened. It's that last point that perhaps rubs me raw the most. In Vietnam, it was the faulty and ultimately false Domino Theory – if Vietnam fell, all of Southeast Asia would also succumb to Communism, thereby threatening our security. Never happened.

In Iraq, we're told that if we leave now, our security will be threatened. That's probably truer than in the case of Vietnam, but what is the alternative - our staying there indefinitely, with our troops in a shooting gallery? Of course, many who support this course of action point to Germany and Korea as similar examples of this type of commitment by our armed forces. That's just incongruent - how many of our troops were killed in Korea or Germany last year?

Arizona Senator and presidential wannabe Judas John McCain is calling for an overwhelming number of troops for Iraq. That's NOT the answer. And I'm sick and tired of people saying that we shouldn't investigate why we went into Iraq in the first place. That's unadulterated bullshit. More and more evidence streams forth every day that this administration, led by President Bush & Dick Cheney, leaned very hard on the intelligence agencies to come up with intelligence to fit their policy – invading Iraq, which was this administration's policy BEFORE 9-11. And it's not merely political pundits saying that, it's former administration insiders like Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill.

Speaking of why we went into Iraq and other Bush screw-ups, I'm somewhat peeved that Democratic Party leaders have publicly stated, both before and after the election, that impeachment is "off the table." I'm not saying that Bush should be impeached, but there are several things that need to be investigated, and wherever those investigations lead, so be it. To come right out and say that impeachment is off the table before anything has even been looked into is premature and foolish. And the public not having the stomach for impeachment isn't an excuse, either. Congress has a Constitutional duty to oversee the Executive Branch. However, maybe declaring impeachment is off limits isn't a bad thing - if by some crazy circumstances Bush were to be forced from office, we'd have Dick Cheney. I'd rather have Saddam Hussein.

One thing I am encouraged about, before the Democrats even take over, is Nancy Pelosi's statement that her number one priority as Speaker is ending the War in Iraq. Well said. And notice what she’s not saying, if you click the link and read her comments, and that’s ending the war in Afghanistan. Finding bin Laden should still be a #1 goal in the War on Terrorism. All I ever hear about is how the Bush Administration has kept us safe since 9-11, but my argument (and I hope it will be one of Democratic leaders in Congress) is that we should be safer yet, and we would be, had our government not spent $350 billion on a misguided, unnecessary, preemptive War in Iraq.

Now that the election is over, the '08 campaign has officially begun. Of course, the day after the election, CNN conducted a poll asking who voters preferred in a Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain, race. McCain led in that poll 48% - 47%. It's essentially meaningless, though, with just under a year-and-a-half to go until the primaries really heat up, and about 14 months from the Iowa Caucus. But, this January will be very interesting, because that’s when the biggies are expected to declare whether they are running or not, including John McCain, possibly Hillary and Barack Obama.

I have reservations about both Hillary and Barack. Clinton is simply too divisive – I would vote for her in a nanosecond and think she would make a tremendously successful and effective president, but, more than anything, I think most Democrats want a candidate with a real shot to win the presidency. I fear that Clinton is not that candidate. I really like Obama, but I have reservations about his lack of experience, but he makes up for that in other ways, including his eloquent speeches and his tremendous talents as an orator. Obama had this to say at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, about the War in Iraq and the use of force:

When we send our young men and women into harm's way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they're going, to care for their families while they're gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.

When you contrast that against the Bush Administration's handling of the War in Iraq , it's pretty stark, They haven't done most of what Obama rightfully calls for when sending our troops into battle.

I don't have a good inkling about who will run and get the nomination in either party, but my early favorite to run is Al Gore. I'm sure many, many people on both sides of the political divide will roll their eyes at that name, but '08 will mark eight years since his last campaign, and I believe he's learned many hard lessons. Plus, Gore has brought the number one threat to all of humanity, global warming, to the forefront of public discussion. There's no question that global warming will be an enormous campaign issue in the '08 race, and it's due in no small part to Gore's tireless efforts. Whoever the Democratic Nominee is, it'll certainly be a Democratic strength in the campaign. Bush has done nothing to combat the problem at all, even going so far as to break a '00 campaign promise to enact mandatory carbon dioxide emissions.

As far as John Kerry running again, I'm lukewarm at best. The last thing the Democratic Party needs is another Adlai Stevenson. He ran a horrific campaign in '04, surrounding himself with inept people. If he does make another run, I certainly hope he makes better decisions this time. He's rightfully stated that his October gaffe won't affect his run. It shouldn't. It's yet another sad example of the media blowing something out of proportion. Even Newsweek, a publication I normally enjoy and like for its balanced reporting, said Kerry's hopes in '08 were likely dashed by his gaffe. What a load.

Anyway, the '08 election seems like an eternity now. We all have bigger things to focus on first. I'm expecting the Democrats to give America the change we've all voted for; I pray they deliver.