Month: November 2010

A reader writes:

I would have much preferred the House remain in the hands of a party grounded in reality, but I can’t help but see a silver lining to this cloud. Ike Skelton, John Spratt, and Jim Oberstar had 98 years of congressional experience between them. I’m sure they had points in their favor, but 98 years between three guys?

When these guys entered congress: the Cold war was alive and well; China’s economy was too small to mention; most homes had three television channels and no computer; American-made products were a reality, not a memory; and there was an actual middle class. Of course, there’s no guarantee their replacements won’t be any less dated in thirty years, but if the tree of liberty has to be watered with the blood of patriots, maybe it gets fertilized by politicians who overstayed their welcome.

Murkowski has a comfortable lead. She will become only the second write-in Senate victor in history. So in her own backyard, Palin's hand-picked and heartily endorsed candidate fell to a write-in Republican and barely eked out a lead over the Democrat. Alaska has begun to move on from the Palin era. Which means the fear may subside a little, and more will feel able to talk.

Almost a quarter of the voters yesterday were seniors – more than twice the number of the under-30s.

Packer captures it in one woman in Virginia:

“I’m a constitutional conservative and I do not ever approve of distribution of wealth, and I am not a socialist, this country is not socialist, we are founded on Judeo-Christian principles. I will riot in the street if I have to. I have never been so ashamed of the way Obama has diminished the Presidency. He calls certain people enemies. He doesn’t dress properly. He talks about certain networks. He is just what he is — a Chicago agitator.”

He doesn't dress properly?

Michael Kinsley examines the choice the American people just made:

Everybody will be talking in the next few days about the “message” of the elections… But my colleague Joe Scarborough got it right in these pages last week when he argued that the 2010 elections, for all their passion and vitriol, are basically irrelevant.

Some people are voting Tuesday for calorie-free chocolate cake, and some are voting for fat-free ice cream. Neither option is actually available. Neither party’s candidates seriously addressed the national debt, except with proposals to make it even worse. Scarborough might have added that neither party’s candidates had much to say about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (except that they “support our troops,” a flabby formulation that leaves Americans killing and dying in faraway wars that politicians won’t defend explicitly). Politicians are silent on both these issues for the same reason: There is no solution that American voters will tolerate. Why can’t we have calorie-free chocolate cake? We’re Americans!

Ambers:

The GOP plans to hold high profile hearings examining the alleged "scientific fraud" behind global warming, a sleeper issue in this election that motivated the base quite a bit.

That's Megan's proposal for the GOP for solving this country's profound problems – and fiscal crisis:

If Republicans try to act as if they have a mandate, they are going to find themselves in deep, deep trouble. Or rather, they'd better keep that mandate narrow. The public will probably be happy enough with narrowly targeted obstruction–I do think they can get away with a showdown over the health care bill, for example.

Krauthammer takes the cynicism to the deepest level:

"If you're Republican, I think it works rather well in terms of strategy for ‘12. You really didn't want control of the two houses because then Obama could do a Truman where he ran against the do-nothing Congress and ran for re-election. If you put too much of the actual official power in the hands of the Republicans, it makes them responsible. Right now, I think they're in perfect position tactically. Control the House, object, propose stuff that Obama may veto and run on that against him in 2012.”

What we seem to be facing in the next two years is a president actually trying to govern a country in a profound crisis, and an opposition focused entirely on harassing or preventing him … while running for 2012. My view is a relatively simple one: the GOP ran on cutting spending. I think their first move should be to propose a path to balancing the budget in the foreseeable future. I want to see their actual proposals on entitlements and defense. They refused to reveal them before the election. Are we supposed to wait till 2013?

On that, we can judge their seriousness and the validity of the Tea Party's alleged fiscal conservatism.

(Photo: House Republican Leader John Boehner (R), R-Ohio, speaks with Republican Whip Eric Cantor (L) on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, November 3, 2010. By Jim Watson/Getty.)

From the WaPo:

The former president defends his handling of some of the most intense controversies of his presidency, acknowledging at one point that he personally approved the waterboarding, or simulated drowning, of alleged Sept. 11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a practice that the CIA has since forsworn and both President Obama and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. have described as torture barred by international law.

"Damn right," Bush said he told the CIA when they sought his permission.

Incoming Speaker John Boehner:

"While our new majority will serve as your voice in the people's House, we must remember it's the president who sets the agenda for our government."

Saletan pounces:

Gingrich set the agenda. He put forward a platform, treated the election as a referendum on it, and tried to implement it. He governed. He played quarterback, or at least head coach. For this, Gingrich paid a steep price. Against his offense, President Clinton played middle linebacker. In 1995 and 1996, Clinton ran against Gingrich's agenda and beat it.

From this episode, Boehner seems to have learned a political lesson: Don't play offense. Stay in the role of middle linebacker. Let the president set the agenda. For two years, with an eye on the midterms, Boehner has followed this strategy, refusing to put forward a clear program that President Obama could attack. What's surprising is that Boehner is sticking with this defensive posture even after winning power. He has been thrust into leadership but doesn't want it.

 

Ambinder reports:

Democrats are already playing down the notion that they'll get much done in a lame duck session.  They'd rather punt to January particularly the big issues, like tax cuts.  Don't Ask, Don't Tell?  Don't even bother.  On taxes, the outline of a compromise is there, having been floated by Vice President Biden: the rates might stay in place for a larger number of wealthier Americans. The Estate Tax, which jumps up to 55% in January, will probably be restored at a lower rate. Capital gains taxes will also be higher, but not as high as they're slated to be.  Supporters of the START treaty are very worried.