Well, I'm going to bed, but Publius demanded a concession. Here it is. I was wrong. You were right. I'll pay up directly. You need it more than me anyway.
The Senate still hangs in the balance. I think Talent will still pull it out, which is good for judges. (Maybe not - it just tightened again, and now it looks bad for Talent. Looks like we won't know who controls the Senate for a few months - ugh!) Why judicial nominations weren't a bigger issue in this campaign I'll never know.
I'm disappointed, but only a little. I worry about national security, and don't trust the 109th Dems on the subject. But I have faith that the new Democrats that were elected, especially from the Midwest, will take their responsibility seriously. I think the center of balance has actually moved a little to the right. And I think the American people get the big things right. (And even if we don't, we correct ourselves quickly - we survived the Carter Years, after all.) The Republicans didn't deserve to win, and it may be that a banishment to the wilderness for awhile is exactly what they need to return to the values I'm certain they share with the American people - spending, immigration control, etc.
And I've learned that I have work to do as a prognosticator. I'll take solace only in that I had the guts to put it in writing under my own name for all to criticize... I'm generally comfortable in my arrogance, but a little humble pie is usually good for us all.
Here's what I will say. You'll never see me wear black on the day after an American election, or sit around and mope. To do so is un-American, and I use that word as strongly as I know how. Every election we have in accordance with our two-centuries-old founding document represents a transfer of power without violence, with extraordinarily minimal cheating, and with grace befitting a great nation. Candidates will call their lawyers, not their militias, and the decisions of judges will be obeyed willingly. I won't ever accuse people of "voting against their economic interests" - people know what they're voting for. No matter how much we dislike candidates or outcomes, it is shameful to react with anything but joy over that fact. Shameful.
So there it is. I'm glad it's over, and now we move forward. On this night I'm proud to be an American. God bless America, and may our children tell us we did the right things at this most dangerous time in our history.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Oops...one more wrong prognostication for the road...
"I think Talent will still pull it out, which is good for judges."
Okay, who is Talent? What is he/she running for? I saw nothing on my ballot about this person yesterday
Jim Talent WAS an incumbent Senator from Missouri. He was beaten by Claire McCaskill.
Now he is going to be a lobbyist for some defense firm I'm sure.
Derek - did you NOT see the parenthetical? Talent is one of the bigger losses this year. I'll shed no tears for Allen, Chafee, or Burns, but Talent was one of the good guys. Way to meet magnanimity with snidness. Sigh.
Waldo, you're so right. And look at the Democrats who won - hardly the wacky left. The Daily Kos and their ilk will celebrate this as THEIR victory, while ignoring their direct repudiation in Connecticut.
The GOP won in 1994 because they were unapologetic conservatives. Reagan won so overwhelmingly in the 80's for the same reason. Bush I lost in '92 because of his lack of conservatism, allowing Perot to take 19% of the vote.
Publius -- to quote Faith Hill, "Whaaat?" I don't see how this is a loss for a limited constitutional democracy or a federal republic. Its a loss for policies that both you and I support, but surely to see this slight re-alignment of the political forces in the country as the beginning of the end of the federal republic is a little too much, no?
Publius. The values you point to have almost no currency on the Republican side. This last Congress saw Republicans doing their best to expand the reach and power of the federal government to push their values. The Democrats will do the same. The Republicans are not, and have not been for the last 6 odd years the party of limited federal government -- spending, Terri Schiavo, No Child Left Behind, Prescription Drugs you can go on and on.
What happened yesterday is a political realignment, to say that the federal republic is dead because people you don't agree with will be controlling its legislature is frankly absurd.
How does Alcee Hastings rising to the chairmanship of a committee portend the death of the Republic? It seemed to survive several Republican congressman taking millions in bribes it should be able to survive a once impeached judge running a house committee. Or is Democratic corruption much worse than Republican corruption just because its Democratic?
I think Alito and Roberts are strong, but do two nominations really outweigh all of the other steps taken by Republicans to grow the federal government?
Come on, now - it hasn't been that bad. We've killed a hell of a lot of bad guys. And while the spending has been shameful, the tax cuts have been huge. And it's not just Roberts and Alito - with the exception of Meyers, the judicial nominations have been on the whole very good.
publius, sure I used a little hyperbole there, but you still have n't told me why Alcee Hastings' brand of corruption is a greater threat to the "federal republic" (your words) than all the Republican corruption we've seen over the last Congress ...
Since he's an impeached judge on the INTELLIGENCE committee, which requires an unbelievable amount of integrity, I'd say Alcee is particularly dangerous.
"I should add, we wouldn't have to worry about the corruption so much if these legislators didn't have absolute power (which of course absolutely corrupts); power that has been usurped over the last 100 years because of the "living constitution" view. You shoudl expect corruption when there are three trillion dollars at stake in the federal budget."
Now on that, I'll agree with you.
SirW, what I mean by unapologetic conservatism is more in the Reagan vein.
- Fiscal Conservatism does NOT mean "pay as you go" - socialists can do that with huge taxes. It means tax cuts and government reductions.
- Strong military/American exceptionalism. Republicans have been better on this than Dems by far, but they're all wusses compared to Reagan's 600 Ship Navy and "we win, they lose" stance on Communism.
- Reagan was a deeply religious man who was against abortion, would certainly have been against gay marriage had it been an issue, etc. But he framed it more positively, and spoke of "virtue" as being central to sustaining a free society. Successful social conservatism is saying that two parent households are the best way to raise kids, it's OK to spank your kids, unabashed pride in a free society run on free markets, that we shouldn't be ashamed of humble beginings, and that there is nothing wrong with talking about God even in the public sphere. That's a clumsy description, but I think his cultural conservatism was more hollistic and more powerful than the current issue based sniping that people now associate with "Social Conservatives."
Those issues all are central. That's why Dems (especially the successful ones) ran as self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives who hate abortion and are against gay marriage, love to shoot things, and argued that Rummy was a failure because we didn't have ENOUGH troops in Iraq. We'll see how much their policies reflect their promises, but it's undeniable that socialist-liberalism is in profound retreat as an electoral strategy. If the Dems raise taxes or flee Iraq, they will be punished severely for their betrayal.
I call it a welcome mat for the terrorists- but I also think that saying it makes the libs mad which is funny.
"Derek - did you NOT see the parenthetical? Talent is one of the bigger losses this year. I'll shed no tears for Allen, Chafee, or Burns, but Talent was one of the good guys. Way to meet magnanimity with snidness. Sigh."
Apologies Orrin. It wasn't intended to be snide, but I can see how that happened. I posted that shortly after Talent conceded, as much for a news item as anything. Again, my apologies.
Talent was a good guy, but I won't miss any righties that want to make my decisions for me.
Pub-
I can only assume that you want me to share my opinion with others, because we've talked about this extensively.
I am for freedom in all its forms. That's why I voted against the strip club ban.
However, this also includes the freedom from being threatened by others actions.
Publius-
Taxes and regulation are a tradeoff I make with my neighbors to combat the free rider problem.
I am in control of those things through the people I send to congress and the legislature.
Outlawing strip clubs does not combat the free rider problem, it merely prevents people from making thier own choices.
Gun control, abortion, making drugs and prostitution illegal, outlawing online gambling, the smoking ban, trans-fats ban are all examples of the improper use of government power.
Derek, all of the regulations you cited as "improper" are also subject to your review via your vote, and all affect the entirerty of society (including "free riders"). You are no less "in control" of those things than you are "in control" of taxes. The impingment on freedom is still there. And to the extent that other people want lower taxes than you, you are the government making decisions for other people. The distinctions you make don't make sense.
Frankly, as much as I think strip clubs should be legal, I don't question society's interest in regulating or even eliminating them if they so choose. And poor access to strip clubs impacts my freedom FAR less than high taxes.
What's more, high taxes CREATE "free riders" - they don't solve the problem of it. Look at the failure of socialism for proof positive.
ALL government regulation - taxes, safety regs, liquor laws, etc. - should be enacted ONLY when absolutely necessary.
Post a Comment