Centerblue.org

As Republicans retreat like beaten curs in the face of their implosion last night, to lick their wounds and fret about a future under Nancy Pelosi, they would do well to reflect on what brought them to such a sorry juncture.

The Party of Lincoln was supposed to be one of limited government, fiscal prudence and a balanced budget, a belief in the power of the markets, transparent governance, and a strong and sensible foreign policy. These principles were embodied in the Republicans’ Contract with America that helped usher them into power for twelve years. Notably absent from the Contract was any mention of divisive social issues like abortion or gay rights.

Shortly after their ascension to power, and increasingly so after Bush II came into office, Republicans threw the Contract away and most of their core principles along with it, adopting instead a scorched-earth policy based on delusions of having secured a permanent majority:

• Instead of focusing on dollars and cents, they resorted to socially divisive issues like gay marriage and Terry Schiavo to rally their base while leaving the rest of America cold.
• Their “win at all costs” mentality caused them to impeach a popular sitting president over a sexual indiscretion, severely poisoning the atmosphere in Washington and nearly eliminating the possibility of bipartisanship on any issues ever since.
• After 9/11, they squandered not just the goodwill of the world in the aftermath of the attack but also the nation’s prestige and ability to lead or pressure other nations through their pig-headed and misguided determination to invade Iraq without a plan or a clear set of goals.
• They became a rubber-stamp for a President with total disregard for basic constitutional rights.
• They engaged in fear-mongering tactics to win elections, raising the specter of terrorists on every street corner just waiting to pounce on Americans should Democrats ever come to power.
• Instead of nurturing the federal surplus handed to them after the Clinton years, they wasted it all and turned the surplus into humongous deficits, spending like drunken sailors while Bush failed to use his veto pen on anything except a stem cell research bill.
• They insisted on greatly worsening the federal budget by handing out tax cuts to those who needed them the least.
• They threw transparency in government out the window, letting their votes be bought by lobbyists and operations such as the “K Street Project.”

Many of the ideas of the Revolution itself were really good. What failed was Republicans’ ability to execute on them because of their self-entitled sense of having obtained permanent hegemony and the concomitant feeling that they no longer needed to be brought to account for their actions. It became sufficient for them to keep rallying their base, keep pushing wedge issues on the public, keep painting their Democratic opponents as weak on terrorism and wanting to coddle terrorists.

The Republican Revolution came to power because of an idea. It ended when the only idea left was how to keep power. As Democrats return to enjoy their own time in the sun, they would do well not to forget that lesson.

It’s one thing to lob bombs from the safety of minority status, it is quite another to lead. With Democrats sweeping the Republicans out of the House for the first time in 12 years, and probably picking up the Senate pending recounts in Montana and Virginia, what they just accomplished was the easy part. Now comes the hard part of leading the country out of the sorry morass in which it finds itself.

Let’s neither under- nor over-estimate the magnitude and meaning of Democratic victory last night.

The leader of the “under-estimate” crowd is the idiotic and disgraced former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who with a straight face told MSNBC last night that a Democratic victory in the House would make them nothing more than a “lame-duck majority;” whatever that means, it is infinitely better than being a minority which is what hopefully faces his party for the foreseeable future. I have also seen lots of bloggers, liberal ones especially, downplay the meaning of the election as having been limited to just a few corrupt officials, say it’s a “small step forward,” it wasn’t a landslide, and so on.

From whence comes this pessimism? Have we been out of power so long we are still too afraid to relish being in the majority, fearing that we might wake up any minute and find out it was just a dream?

When the Republicans ushered in their so-called Republican Revolution in 1994 with guns blazing, by what margin did they hold the House? The GOP led Democrats by 230 to 204, a margin that shrank in the intervening years and one that was won mostly by victories in the conservative South. How about now? Democrats picked up at least 27 seats last night without losing a single one (unheard of in modern memory even in 1994), many of them in the Northeast but also in all other areas of the country. That put the count at around 228 Democratic, 195 GOP, and 12 still undecided as of this morning. Pretty close to 1994 in reverse, huh? With that 230 to 204 margin the GOP, for better or for mostly worse, imposed a long period of Republican hegemony in Washington that didn’t end until last night. If that number was good enough for them, it’s good enough for Democrats.

On the other hand, let’s not over-state the case either. Democrats won more for being the anti-Bush than for the strength of their own vision, and nobody is claiming a revolution. I don’t see that as a bad thing. An old saw in politics is that when your enemy is self-destructing, you stand back and let it happen. Republicans were doing such a good job of imploding, and voters seemed so eager for a change, that there was no reason for Democrats to stick their necks out by proposing plans and visions that would subject them to hostile fire. Keeping mum on a specific agenda was therefore good politics.

Now the election is over, the Elephant is dead, and it’s time for Democrats to grapple with the reins of power. I do not envy them the huge mess they have been left with to fix: Iraq. North Korea. Iran. Global warming and accelerating environmental degradation. Corruption. An economy teetering on the edge of a nasty recession or worse caused by a flattening housing market, loss of confidence in the dollar, and massive federal debt and trade deficits. Oil addiction to hostile countries. Stagnant wages. Soaring healthcare costs. The imminent retirement of the baby boomers and the accompanying burdens on federal entitlement programs.

The problems are monumental, and the nation is looking to Democrats to start providing some answers. If they succeed, they will likely forge an enduring majority. If they do not, they will either return to minority status or exchange power every so often with Republicans. In a way the deck is stacked against them, since many of the problems that were created by Republicans will see their full fallout and consequences under Democrats’ watch, and they therefore stand to be unfairly punished in the future. But that’s the nature of politics, and Democrats will either cope or not.

As they struggle for answers, the more liberal leadership should not forget that they were brought to power on the backs of moderates and conservatives who wrested districts away from Republicans. The center-left forms the backbone of the new Democratic resurgence. These people, the Blue Dog Democrats and others like them, will have to answer to their constituencies again in the not-too-distant future, and you can bet these folks will push hard for the kind of centrist agenda that the DLC and Rahm Emmanuel espouse. This alignment towards the center is also good for the party because our gain of moderates (truly the heart of America) is Republicans’ losses of same, making them more than ever a minority party of extremists on the Right.

Democrats are off to a good start, promising in their first 100 hours to do things like raise the minimum wage and force pharmaceutical companies to compete and lower prices for the Medicare prescription drug benefit. They will not have much time to celebrate and measure the drapes before being called to account for their vision on how to fix the mess in Iraq.

They better be ready.

The Democrats will probably pick up 30 or so seats in the House. In the Senate they have also won in Missouri, are ahead in Montana with the last precincts being counted, and are ahead in Virginia by 11500 votes.

With those numbers, the Donkey dances on the carcass of the great white Elephant, and the conquest of both chambers of Congress is decisive and complete.

I’ll have much more to say in the morning–about the withering defeat of the Republicans, about the massive task ahead for the Democrats, and about the political castration of George W. Bush.

Republican Revolution, RIP, 1994-2006. Good riddance.

In today’s election, when you get past the rhetoric and the robo-calling, the issues are really simple–perhaps more so than in elections past.

If you think we’re in trouble in Iraq and need a change in direction, vote Democratic. If not, vote Republican.

If you think we should not be having discussions about what constitutes torture in America, vote Democratic. If not, vote Republican.

If you think that being American means affording certain fundamental human rights to all defendants, such as rights of access to a lawyer and the right to challenge the legitimacy of your detention (especially when we know at least some people are being detained illegitimately), vote Democratic. If not, vote Republican.

If you think Congress should be more than a rubber stamp for an overreaching President Bush, and serve as a check and balance to his quest for power, vote Democratic. If not, vote Republican.

If you think we should be handling national security by preventing nuclear secrets from leaving Los Alamos or being posted on the Internet, or by better securing our ports, vote Democratic. If not, vote Republican.

If you think that running a massive federal debt while cutting taxes on the rich is a bad thing, vote Democratic. If not, vote Republican.

If you think that stem-cell research should be granted government funding and support, vote Democratic. If not, vote Republican.

If you think the US has a duty long past due to start tackling pollution and global climate change in the face of overwhelming evidence it is taking place with imminent disastrous consequences, vote Democratic. If not, vote Republican.

If you think that the massive lobbying and tit-for-tat operations exemplified by Jack Abramoff is a bad thing to have continue on Capitol Hill, vote Democratic. If not, vote Republican.

If you think it’s a bad thing for the so-called “party of family values” to take the moral high ground while quietly coddling pedophiles, vote Democratic. If not, vote Republican.

If you think we should do more than pay lip service to developing alternative sources of energy to combat global warming and reduce our oil dependency with hostile nations, vote Democratic. If not, vote Republican.

If you think America should serve as the model of leadership and democracy in the world by working with allies who respect it, vote Democratic. If not, vote Republican.

If you think it’s time, after more than a decade, to increase the minimum wage for the middle class without tying it to a vote on lowering death taxes on the rich, vote Democratic. If not, vote Republican.

The choices could not be more clear.

Vote, America–your nation needs you.

As I’ve gone through various blogs this morning and in recent days I’ve been struck by the amount of pessimism by Democrats as to the real likelihood that their party will do well in tomorrow’s elections. After so many disappointments, it’s difficult to conceive that victory–that the vindication of what we have been saying for so many years–might finally be at hand.

Nothing can be taken for granted and every vote counts, none of this is a done deal. Yes, recent polls like the Pew Research Center’s show races tightening and at least some GOP voters holding their nose and deciding to vote for their candidate. The GOP, led by Bush and Rove, are very very good at getting out the vote and framing the debate. The GOP has rigged the game well through aggressive gerrymandering (though I’m sure the Dems did the same previously).

Still, there is much cause for optimism. I can’t think of a single pollster that thinks the Democrats won’t take back the House–and even GOP strategists are privately conceding the House and focusing their efforts on not losing the Senate.

The latest Gallup/USA Today poll also shows the race narrowing, observing that the question of who Americans would rather see controlling Congress had gone down to 51% Dem/44% GOP, a 7 point margin as opposed to a 13 point one two weeks ago. On the other hand, that’s the same spread seen as we went into the 1994 elections (51% GOP/44% Dem), and we all know what happened then.

Last but not least, never in my generation has America been as challenged as it is at this juncture. With thousands of our sons and daughters dead in Iraq; with an administration that wants to “stay the course, full speed ahead” while steering that course with no plan, no allies, and no grasp on reality; with threats of terrorism that are addressed through partisan sound-bytes instead of taking nuke blueprints offline; with humiliating debates on what constitutes “torture” (in America!)–if all of these things do not push the electorate to unleash an electoral earthquake and boot the bastards responsible out of office, then nothing will.

Take nothing for granted, it isn’t over until it’s over. But the chance for change is good, in at least one House of Congress if not both–and I look forward to celebrating victory with friends tomorrow night.

Just when I think I’ve heard the limits of just how debased and how low the GOP will go in its desperate effort to cling to power (race-baiting, a stripper asking a candidate to call her), I hear something new. Over the weekend, news reports surfaced over how the GOP is resorting to “push polls” and other deceptive “crank” calls to get their message out or to anger voters against voting Democratic.

“Push polls” are calls that begin with what appears to be an honest solicitation to participate in a political poll, but then based on the answers given the questions become more and more leading and provocative in favor or against issues and candidates:

During the automated calls, which last about a minute, the moderator first asks whether the listener is a registered voter or which candidate he favors. Voters receive different sets of questions depending on how they answer. The system then asks a series of “yes” or “no” questions about different issues, and each answer guides the system forward.

For instance, in the Montana race, if a voter agrees that liberal-leaning judges seem to go too far, the moderator quickly jumps to another question that highlights the differences between Mr. Tester and the Republican incumbent, Senator Conrad Burns: “Does the fact that Jon Tester says he would have voted against common-sense, pro-life judges like Samuel Alito and John Roberts, and Conrad Burns supported them, make you less favorable toward Jon Tester?”

In Tennessee, after listeners are asked if terrorists should have the same rights as Americans, this comparison between Representative Harold E. Ford Jr., the Democratic Senate candidate, and Bob Corker, the Republican, is given: “Fact: Harold Ford Jr. voted against the recommendations of the 9/11 commission and voted against renewing the Patriot Act, which treats terrorists as terrorists. Fact: Bob Corker supports renewal of the Patriot Act and how it would treat terrorists.”

In some cases, Democrats say, the language is too provocative, and, in others, contrary facts are omitted. Mr. Ford and Mr. Tester, the Montana State Senate president, are both said in the calls to have voted repeatedly for tax increases, but no mention is made of the times they voted for tax cuts, their campaigns say.

Mr. Cardin, who supports stem cell research, said he was incensed that the issue was reduced to the notion that he voted to allow “research to be done on unborn babies,” while his opponent, Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, “opposes any research that destroys human life.”

I don’t object to GOP candidates putting their spin to characterize their opponents’ views–that’s fair politics. What is thoroughly objectionable is that the callers attempt to deceive voters into thinking they’re participating in an objective exercise and then get slammed with partisan propaganda.

Separately, people are reporting that the Republican Congressional Committee is flooding phone lines in certain key districts with calls that begin with something to effect of “Hi! This is an important message about (insert Democrat’s name)!” The calls happen many times a day, causing voters to seethe in anger. Since they typically hear only the first part of the message before slamming down the phone, the wrath is wrongly mis-directed at the Democratic candidate. Says a columnist in the Philly area regarding the race by Dem. Lois Murphy against GOP Rep. Jim Gerlach:

Most recipients slam down the phone before finding out otherwise – and then call to complain.

“We’ve got a ton of complaints, starting about two weeks ago,” [Murphy communications director] Bonitatibus said.

“Some of our biggest supporters have said, ‘If you call me again, I’m not voting for Lois.’

How can these GOP candidates look at themselves in the mirror in the morning and say they’re running a campaign premised on anything other than the raw hunger for power? The depravity seen on the part of the GOP this campaign season–a party that has brought America to a disastrous junction between the war in Iraq and the use of the Constitution as toilet paper–would make their founder Abraham Lincoln turn in his grave.

Just more day until Americans–who I’m optimistic are too smart in the aggregate to be fooled by these tactics–have a chance to give the GOP the shellacking they deserve.

In the latest outrageous Bush effort to transform this nation into a fascist land of gulags and Big Brothers, his administration has the temerity to tell a federal judge that terrorism suspects must be gagged and prevented from speaking in public or even to their attorneys about the conditions of their confinement and about the torture to which they have been subjected.

The government is asserting that its “interrogation methods” used on suspects in CIA prisons are closely guarded and “top secret”–although it must be the worst-kept government secret ever, since everyone knows what’s going on at the hands of the Bush regime. Nevertheless, because the government deems these methods “top secret,” they argue in a federal court case that this fact means that prisoners must be prohibited from talking about them. Of course they’re also arguing, in light of last month’s unconstitutional Military Commissions Act, that the prisoners in question do not even have the right to talk to a lawyer at all.

There is no limit to the nerve of this administration in its quest to implement its vision of a decidedly unconstitutional monarchy. It now claims for itself the power to declare any information it pleases “top secret” and thereby prevent people from talking about it. Can you imagine? No longer does the government stamp documents “top secret” and then grant access only to a privileged few, which is a proactive, positive way to keep state secrets. It now wants to declare a subject of conversation top secret and then get people to stop talking about it. What nerve.

Of course the real purpose here is to shield the Executive from embarrassment or from having to admit to the depravity it is endorsing against suspects without any regard for what it means to be an American.

In Bush’s America, nobody is safe from the baleful Eye and Hand of the Executive. You better watch what you say.

And now this, from the party in power that promises to keep you safer from the dreaded mushroom cloud:

Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who had said they hoped to “leverage the Internet” to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.

But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.

Last night, the government shut down the Web site after The New York Times asked about complaints from weapons experts and arms-control officials. A spokesman for the director of national intelligence said access to the site had been suspended “pending a review to ensure its content is appropriate for public viewing.”

Officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency, fearing that the information could help states like Iran develop nuclear arms, had privately protested last week to the American ambassador to the agency, according to European diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity. One diplomat said the agency’s technical experts “were shocked” at the public disclosures.

…

The documents, roughly a dozen in number, contain charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs.

Let me get this straight: the GOP, hoping to unearth non-existent evidence of WMD dangers in pre-war Iraq in hopes of bolstering its desperate case for the war, forced the government to put pre-1991 materials online that could be used by any terrorist or rogue nation with enough technical know-how to build a nuclear weapon. They did this while at the same time trying to portray Democrats as weak on keeping America safe from terrorism.

Feel safer yet?

There is a battle royale going on between former Majority Leader Dick Armey and James Dobson of Focus on the Family, a radical right group.

In last Sunday’s edition of the Washington Post, Armey argued that Republicans face an electoral rout because they abandoned the principles of limited government and became the party of huge deficits, Terry Schiavo, flag burning, and same-sex marriage. He pins much of the blame for this on Dobson and other Christian leaders on his FreedomWorks website, and has called them “thugs” and “bullies” in recent interviews.

Dobson and others are predictably shocked and dismayed at Armey’s remarks, saying he is a bitter man who is sore that Dobson supported an opponent of Armey’s for the post of majority leader.

One comment by the radical right was particularly telling as it condemned Armey: “If it weren’t for the [anti same-sex] marriage amendment in Ohio, John Kerry would be president. So shut up, Dick,” said Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention and an ally of Dobson’s–which goes to show once again that the GOP’s stooges only care about so-called “family values” insofar as it helps their candidates get elected.

Not that I feel particularly sorry for Dobson and his ilk, but Dick Armey sure didn’t refrain from using social wedge issues when it suited him, such as pushing the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” in 1996 (which uselessly told the states they could ignore same-sex marriages from other states when they could already do so under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution), a craven act of GOP politicking intended to force Clinton to choose between his liberal base and the independent vote during his re-election. I think he’s being a tad bit hypocritical.

Sometimes it’s just best to sit back and watch your opponents destroy each other..it sure is a lot of fun!

The Rev. Ted Haggard stepped down as president of the National Association of Evangelicals after revelations surfaced that he has repeatedly paid for gay sex and has used illegal metamphetamines. The burgeoning scandal involving the preacher, a vociferous opponent of gay marriage, comes at a terrible time for the GOP.

The problem can be summarized in two words: Mark Foley. Just as Kerry threatened to reinforce negative views of Democrats through his “botched joke,” Haggard strikes at the heart of some of the problems buffeting the GOP. It is likely to remind voters of GOP hypocrisy on the issue of family values. It will remind Christian conservatives of how badly they’ve been used by the GOP (while Bush and Co. laugh at them behind their backs), and how much the GOP has failed to implement their reactionary agenda. It also generally reinforces the “culture of corruption” theme that Democrats have been using as a hammer against their opponents.

In the end, I think most people have already made up their minds how they’re going to vote. A new poll shows that the “Kerry moment” is a total non-issue in people’s minds–especially among independents–as they prepare to head to the voting booth. If Haggard does any damage it’s likely to be long-term, hopefully causing evangelicals to re-evaluate their involvement in politics given the way they have been mercilessly used and disappointed.