ROBIN TONER, November 8, 2006
Link to Original

Everything is different now for President Bush. The era of one-party Republican rule in Washington ended with a crash in yesterday's midterm elections, putting a proudly unyielding president on notice that the voters want change, especially on the war in Iraq.

Mr. Bush now confronts the first Democratic majority in the House in 12 years and a significantly bigger Democratic caucus in the Senate that were largely elected on the promise to act as a strong check on his administration. Almost any major initiative in his final two years in office will now, like it or not, have to be bipartisan to some degree.

For six years, Mr. Bush has often governed, and almost always campaigned, with his attention focused on his conservative base. But yesterday's voting showed the limits of those politics, as practiced — and many thought perfected — by Mr. Bush and his chief political adviser, Karl Rove.

In the bellwether states of Ohio and Pennsylvania, two Republican senators, both members of the legendary freshman class of 1994, were defeated by large margins. Across the Northeast, Republican moderates were barely surviving or, like Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, falling to Democrats who had argued that they were simply too close to a conservative president.

Most critically, perhaps, Republicans lost the political center on the Iraq war, according to national exit polls. Voters who identified themselves as independents broke strongly for the Democrats, the exit polls showed, as did those who described themselves as moderates.

Senator Olympia J. Snowe, a Maine Republican who was re-elected yesterday, said that with the election's results, the administration's Iraq policy "has to change."
"It absolutely has to change," Ms. Snowe said. "And that message should have been conveyed by the administration much sooner."

Mr. Bush's allies could argue that history was working against Republicans, that in a president's sixth year in office, his party was ripe for big losses. They could also argue that Congressional Republicans brought their own vulnerabilities and scandals to the table. But this was a nationalized election, and Mr. Bush and Iraq were at the center of it.

Nearly 4 in 10 voters said they saw their ballot as a vote against Mr. Bush, about twice as many as those who said they had cast their ballots for him. It was a remarkable turnaround for a president who just two years ago emerged triumphant from his re-election campaign, declaring that he had earned political capital and intended to spend it.

That capital slowly drained away with an ill-fated fight on Social Security, a furor over the government's mishandling of Hurricane Katrina, an aggressive intervention for conservative causes like the right-to-die case of Terri Schiavo, and, more than anything, pollsters said, the war in Iraq. In the final days of the campaign, Mr. Bush's travels to some of the most Republican and least competitive regions in the country were a portrait of his political isolation.

Geoffrey Garin, a Democratic pollster, said, "An important feature of this election, with implications for 2008, is that the center of the electorate clearly doesn't like to be ignored in an era of base politics. The Republicans played to the base at their great peril among the middle."

After a campaign that only escalated the tension between Mr. Bush and Congressional Democrats, the president will now face overwhelming pressure to take a more conciliatory approach. For example, he will be under increasing pressure to re-evaluate his support for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, which he so publicly restated in the closing days of the campaign.

Bruce Buchanan, a political scientist at the University of Texas at Austin, said Mr. Bush certainly had the capability to practice more bipartisan politics; he governed that way often in Texas, and also occasionally in Washington, on legislation like the No Child Left Behind Act.

Other analysts pointed out that on issues like energy and immigration, Mr. Bush can find common ground with many Democrats. Vin Weber, a former Republican congressman and lobbyist who is close to the administration, said, "They'll be able to pivot quite easily on this and adapt to political reality."

But much of Mr. Bush's domestic agenda, which was not exactly gliding through the current Congress, will face even tougher prospects now. That includes any effort to overhaul entitlement programs like Social Security, already heavily shadowed by his failed effort to push through private investment accounts for Social Security in 2005, as well as any effort to extend all of his tax cuts, which Democrats say were heavily skewed to the most affluent.

Moreover, with a greater Democratic presence in the Senate, Mr. Bush will have far less latitude in his judicial nominees.

Even if Mr. Bush makes the grand gestures, Democrats heading into the 2008 presidential campaign may not be in the mood to reciprocate. Still, on Iraq, some change is almost inevitable, analysts say.

There is already a vehicle for a new bipartisanship, experts noted. A commission headed by James A. Baker III, former secretary of state, and Lee H. Hamilton, former Democratic representative from Indiana, is exploring policy alternatives for Iraq and is expected to make recommendations this winter.

House Democratic leaders have already indicated that they will not cut off financing for the war; in many ways, their greatest power will be their ability to investigate, hold hearings and provide the oversight that they asserted was so lacking in recent years.

Experts point out that Mr. Bush is hardly the first president to confront a House controlled by the opposition; since World War II, some form of divided government has been the norm. President Bill Clinton, through a combination of negotiation, brinksmanship and bluffs, produced major legislation with the Republican Congress after 1994, including an overhaul of the welfare system and a huge balanced budget law.

Mr. Bush could try to do the same. But first he would have to abandon the political worldview that he drew, by many accounts, from his father's defeat — to never cross his base. President George H. W. Bush lost conservatives when he broke his "no new taxes pledge."

The younger Bush has rarely made that mistake. His circle had clearly hoped that the conservative base would come through in the end, saving the Republican majority even in the face of an unpopular war. But this time, it was not enough. ++



DOUG THOMPSON, November 9, 2006
Link to Original

President George W. Bush decided before Tuesday's mid-term elections to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld but lied, once again, to the press and the American people about his intentions.

Bush admitted Wednesday that he interviewed former CIA director Robert M. Gates over the weekend for Rumsfeld's job and said he intentionally misled reporters last week about the defense secretary's future to avoid making the Iraq war more of an issue in the election.

More of an issue? The Iraq war, and Bush's mishandling of it, was the issue in Tuesday's rout that swept Democrats back into power in both the House and Senate.

Once again, Bush proved himself unaware of the obvious and oblivious to the voter anger that sent Republicans packing. He blamed GOP losses on voter ignorance, saying Americans didn't understand the war in Iraq. He chastised political guru Karl Rove, saying "I obviously was working harder in the campaign than he was." He later would claim the line was a joke but it wasn't. Bush was clearly pissed at everyone involved in Tuesday's election debacle.

Everyone but himself.

Wednesday's press conference was classic Bush. Offer up Rumsfeld as the first of what some expect will be a number of scapegoats for the Tuesday massacre, avoid accepting responsibility for his own culpability and talk about how he hopes to work with Democrats after six years of riding roughshod over them.

When asked about the outrageous claims he made about incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats during the election, saying they favored victory by terrorists, Bush dismissed his inflammatory rhetoric as "just politics."

"The election is over," Bush said. "It's time to move on."

Yet it's hard to move on with a President who openly admits lying and then rationalizes that lying as "just politics."

Bush's disregard for the truth is just one of his many ethical problems and moral lapses. He lives in a delusional world of his own making, a political allegory that mocks morality, ethics and the law. In his warped mind, all is fair in politics. He and his party proved that over and over in this past election season, using fear, racism, bigotry, homophobia and outright lies to try and hold on to power.

Now that he's lost, he wants to make nice and demands that the opposition forgive and forget.

A recommendation for incoming Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid: Don't fall for Dubya's act. He's a venomous political snake who will turn and bite at the first opportunity because that's what snakes do.

Don't turn your backs on him, don't trust him for a nanosecond and don't believe for an instant that he serves any interest but his own.

George W. Bush proved this past week that he will sell out anyone - including his own administration and his party's leaders in Congress. If, last week, he had announced his decision to replace Donald Rumsfeld, it might have swayed enough voters to keep at least the Senate in GOP hands.

But Bush, for reasons lost somewhere in his deranged mind, decided to lie again to the American people. It was, in the end, another desperate, unexplainable, act by a madman. ++
 


RAW STORY, Thursday November 9, 2006
Link to Original

After winning back the House, two senior Democrats are engaged in a "battle" for the Majority Leader position, Roll Call reports.

Yesterday morning, RAW STORY posted a statement released by Congressman Steny Hoyer (D-MD) which indicated his intention to seek the post.

"As part of the leadership team that helped regain the House Majority, I would like to continue to serve House Democrats as their Majority Leader,"H Hoyer stated. "Over the past several months, I have talked with almost every one of my House colleagues and Members-elect, and am grateful for the depth of support I have received."

Hoyer told Roll Call that "over a majority" of incumbents and Congressman-elects support his bid.

"I think I'm going to win," Hoyer said.

However, Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) "re-affirmed his own interest in the office Wednesday," during an interview with National Public Radio, Roll Call reports.

"I'm working diligently now trying to convince people that I'd make a good balance," Murtha told NPR yesterday.

Excerpts from Roll Call article:

Murtha, who is the ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, also defended his decision to seek the leadership post, asserting that not only is the office an "open seat" in the new Congress, but arguing that he outranks Hoyer in the Caucus hierarchy.

"There's Nancy Pelosi, [Appropriations Committee ranking member Rep.] Dave Obey (D-Wis.) and myself, and then Hoyer is listed after me in the power plays," Murtha said on NPR.

That assertion bewildered at least one Democratic House lawmaker, who spoke on the condition of anonymity: "In my mind that shows a lack of understanding. I like Mr. Murtha but that's just not the way it is."

"There is real genuine concern that we don't want to see a divisive leadership fight, just at the time that we're seeing tremendous success and tremendous unity and harmony and good feelings in the Caucus," the lawmaker added.++

 


This year will be remembered as another moment when Americans started another historic process -- one that will usher in a new sense of community and demands for a government that focuses on the common good.

That's the thing about America. Whenever our leaders have failed to meet the challenges of the day, whenever our government's priorities have narrowed to represent the few at the expense of the many, the American people have risen up as one and corrected our course.

It will also be remembered as the rebirth of a political party devoted to ensuring that ordinary people not only have a voice, but real power at all levels of government.

Just 21 months ago we began the long process of breathing new life into our party with a 50-state strategy. After years of watching the playing field of "competitive" races dwindle and our operation disappear in many parts of the country, ordinary Democrats across the country demanded a truly national party.

Since then we've built the field organizing, communications, technological and financial infrastructure of a party that can and will compete everywhere. We've done it by growing our operation from the ground-up and empowering Democrats to take our party and our democracy into their own hands.

Here are just a few examples of how that work impacted this election:

Kansas: Our 50-state strategy organizers helped transform the Democratic Party in Kansas under the leadership of Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius. Strong leadership from the Democratic Party created a wave of party-switchers -- moderate Republicans fed-up with the right-wing stranglehold on their party. The reinvigorated state party knocked on hundreds of thousands of doors and elected Democrats up and down the ballot, including new Democratic Congresswoman Nancy Boyda in the 2nd Congressional district and new Attorney General Paul Morrison, who beat his opponent by over 134,000 votes.

Minnesota: Four DNC field organizers in Minnesota have created an unprecedented field program. Republican Mark Kennedy was supposed to have a lock on the open Senate seat, but with new technology by the DNC and 1.6 million voters contacted, Amy Klobuchar defied expectations and handily won the race after thousands of unlikely voters came to the polls. We're not stopping here -- this work will continue apace as we position our party to take back a Senate seat in 2008.

Ohio: Our field organizers in Ohio expanded the state party's infrastructure, making inroads deep into what has long been considered "Bush Country." A DNC-funded field director, four field organizers, and a voter database manager all helped run voter contact operations in parts of the state that hadn't heard from the Democratic Party in years. Take Butler county, for example, where Democratic performance improved by nearly 50% on our 2004 results as we elected a new Democratic Senator, Democratic Governor, Democratic Secretary of State, and more Democrats up and down the ballot.

South Dakota: The Democratic Party in South Dakota is now a powerful political operation. In 2002, Democrats recruited only 66 legislative candidates. This year we recruited 90. Democratic Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth was re-elected, and South Dakotans rejected a radical measure that denies the basic right of women, in consultation with their families and doctors, to make their own decisions about their reproductive health.

New Hampshire: In this crucial state we re-elected our Democratic governor and picked up House seats. In the course of our work we laid a permanent foundation for the party -- including a research and tracking operation that helped elect Democrats this cycle and will be the foundation of a tracking operation to hold Republican presidential candidates accountable as they crisscross the state.

Indiana: Over a year ago, Democrats in Indiana started planning for Election Day. They focused on a strategy that initiated a new media campaign to hold Republicans accountable for their actions, and worked to drive the Democratic message using grassroots support. The state party was able to hire a communications director, and because the executive director no longer had to focus on working with the media, he was able to concentrate on fundraising - raising enough money to hire an organizer to work in the 2nd congressional district, another Democratic pickup, where Democrat Joe Donnelly gained more than 17,000 votes than the Democrat had in 2002.

And in other states, Democrats gained new majorities in eight state legislative chambers. We now have majorities in 55 state chambers - the largest shift since 1994.

Next week will mark one year of organizing for 2006 -- we began in earnest just a week after 2005 elections that yielded new Democratic governors in Virginia and New Jersey. Across the country, at over 1,000 venues in all 50 states, ordinary Democrats came together to organize for elections nearly a year away.

Those nationwide events built over time -- the 50-State Canvass, the Democratic Reunion, the 50-State Turnout Kickoff -- bringing more and more ordinary people into the Democratic operation in every state across the country.

That process will continue, and soon you're going to have more opportunities to participate meaningfully than ever before.

For the first time in a generation, after a national election our party operation will not disintegrate. Our growing party operation in the states will support newly elected Democrats and educate the public about the common sense solutions we'll be pursuing, and hold Republicans accountable for their corruption and continued failures of leadership.

A special group of people make that possible. Nearly 35,000 Americans have been invested in this victory for months -- many for over a year. They give a small amount every month in the form of a Democracy Bond. Democracy Bond holders are a community of people committed to providing the long-term financial backbone necessary to pursue this kind of 50-state operation.

You can commemorate these historic wins and lay the groundwork for a generation of victories ahead of us by joining the Democracy Bond community now:

It's been a big Election Day, and every Democrat has earned the right to celebrate today. We won elections up and down the ballot tonight because Democrats are ready to lead.

There's one more thing anyone watching the Democratic Party should know today:
We're only getting started.

Thank you.

Governor Howard Dean, M.D. ++

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)