Or not, perhaps. I still think the most likely outcome is one that will disappoint all sides, with both parties losing some close and apparently winnable races and the GOP returning narrowed majorities in both Houses. How damaging that will be to the Republicans depends in large part on which races we lose – Lincoln Chaffee, for example, almost never comes through on close votes of significance, whereas people like Santorum and Talent always do (a similar dynamic exists in the House).
5 thoughts on “The Coming Democratic Takeover”
Comments are closed.
Crank — Take a look at the Senate race in Virginia. As a non-partisan, walking into the voting booth who would you vote for:
a) decorated vietnam war hero, Secretary of the Navy under Reagan, against affirmative action, against achieving social policy through the military, Georgetown Law grad, foresaw all the current problems in Iraq and advocated containment; or
b) another faux cowboy who talks tough and has no idea how to get out of the mess he and his colleagues have created.
I’d like to see you give James Webb a plug. It would do wonders for the integrity the site.
Crank, I rather agree with Patrick on this one. The idea that you “have to come through” for your party, rather than the country is something far more partisan than you generally write. The WSJ wrote an editorial last week that the GOP finally supported Spector in PA, and he returned the favor when he voted for Alito. Now I don’t much like Alito’s politics, but that doesn’t mean he should be denied being on the Court. If Spector found no issue with him, then he should vote for what he thinks is right anyway.
Also, this last weekend, Bush spent time basically calling McCain, Warner and co. “Rebels.” Because they, along with other Republicans actually think we should act in accordance with our ethical standards. It’s called a conscience. I do think, without question, that Senators McCain and Warner, who served in uniform, and continue to serve in a suit and tie, did a lot more, and still serves this country far more than that gang of gutless wonders who dare to insult anyone simply for disagreeing with them.
I keep going back to Reagan, but when he said, “Thou shalt not speak ill of other Republicans,” he did generally mean you should have some good ideas to go with it.
However, to give the other side their due, I do think that when you capture an enemy combatant, and they are not in uniform, at least in the movies, they could be shot as spies. So I don’t think the issue is as one dimensional as many think. However, I will never, ever, want to give a blank warrant to my governement to simply hide away, torture and abuse anyone. In special separate cases, almost every court (except for dopes like Judge Harold Baer) has understood the need for exigent circumstances. When that is practiced, the courts can deal with what should be rare occurances, not the norm.
The Geneva Convention does address the handling of non-uniformed combatants. They can be executed as spies. This is not just a movie generated notion. I don’t believe that all terrorists captured on the battlefield should be shot, some should. Considering the actual rule of law associated with this, I believe the US has been VERY tolerant.
As for Crank needing to endorse any candidate to help the credability of the site, that is hilarious.
That’s rather a slanted description of Allen/Webb, ignoring Allen’s experience as a successful and popular governor and state legislator and his record in the Senate, and glossing over the circumstances of Webb’s departure from the Reagan Administration as well as his general tilt to the Left on many social and economic issues now that he’s running as a Democrat. Webb’s a good writer and has a good war record but that does not a good Senator make.
I’m not a big fan of George Allen as presidential timber, but I’m happy enough to see him in the Senate. At least Allen would not think that a “Monkey Fest” is a good way to appeal to African-American voters.
Daryl – OK, I’m using shorthand here – I’m not talking about “coming through” so much for the GOP as for conservative principles. When there’s a vote on the things I believe in, Santorum and Talent are there; Chaffee’s not. I don’t give two hoots if Chaffee is a dependable vote on some logrolling bit of party-building pork, what I care about is strong foreign policy, conservative judges, low taxes, etc. I’d rather have 52 Senators who will vote for those things than 55 whose fickle loyalty is held in place by wasting my money.