Browsing the blog archivesfor the day Wednesday, November 8th, 2006.


Virginia!

-->
Democratic Party, elections

The Associated Press and NBC News report that Webb won the Virginia Senate race. George Allen is expected to concede tomorrow.

Dems rule.

Share Button
22 Comments

Bush’s Remarks

-->
Bush Administration, elections, Iraq War

The transcript.

THE PRESIDENT: … I’m an optimistic person, is what I am. And I knew we were going to lose seats, I just didn’t know how many.

Q How could you not know that and not be out of touch?

THE PRESIDENT: You didn’t know it, either.

Q A lot of polls showed it.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, there was a — I read those same polls, and I believe that — I thought when it was all said and done, the American people would understand the importance of taxes and the importance of security. But the people have spoken, and now it’s time for us to move on.

Looks like commenters to the last post were right — Bush said the people don’t understand the importance of taxes and the importance of security.

He’s insulting the intelligence of the voters.

All afternoon I’ve seen talking heads on television praise Bush for being willing to change direction in Iraq. But Jack Murtha is on MSNBC right now saying that he’s not hearing about a change in policy. I agree. Let’s go back to the transcript.

What Bush said:

The message yesterday was clear: The American people want their leaders in Washington to set aside partisan differences, conduct ourselves in an ethical manner, and work together to address the challenges facing our nation.

We live in historic times. The challenges and opportunities are plain for all to see: Will this country continue to strengthen our economy today and over the long run? Will we provide a first-class education for our children? And will we be prepared for the global challenges of the 21st century? Will we build upon the recent progress we’ve made in addressing our energy dependence by aggressively pursuing new technologies to break our addiction to foreign sources of energy? And most importantly, will this generation of leaders meet our obligation to protect the American people?

Translation: Bush is daring the Dems to just try to force him to change his policies on taxes, No Child Left Behind, globalization, energy, and Iraq.

I know there’s a lot of speculation on what the election means for the battle we’re waging in Iraq. I recognize that many Americans voted last night to register their displeasure with the lack of progress being made there. Yet I also believe most Americans and leaders here in Washington from both political parties understand we cannot accept defeat.

Translation: Bush is not even thinking about taking troops out of Iraq.

In the coming days and weeks, I and members of my national security team will meet with the members of both parties to brief them on latest developments and listen to their views about the way forward. We’ll also provide briefings to the new members of Congress so they can be fully informed as they prepare for their new responsibilities.

As we work with the new leaders in Congress, I’m also looking forward to hearing the views of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by Secretary James Baker and Congressman Lee Hamilton. This group is assessing the situation in Iraq and are expected to provide — and the group is expected to provide recommendations on a way forward. And I’m going to meet with them, I think, early next week.

Translation: Bush will go through the motions of listening to different points of view. And then he’ll decide to stay in Iraq.

The election has changed many things in Washington, but it has not changed my fundamental responsibility, and that is to protect the American people from attack. As the Commander-in-Chief, I take these responsibilities seriously.

Translation: I’m still in charge.

Amid this time of change, I have a message for those on the front lines. To our enemies: Do not be joyful. Do not confuse the workings of our democracy with a lack of will. Our nation is committed to bringing you to justice. Liberty and democracy are the source of America’s strength, and liberty and democracy will lift up the hopes and desires of those you are trying to destroy.

To the people of Iraq: Do not be fearful. As you take the difficult steps toward democracy and peace, America is going to stand with you. We know you want a better way of life, and now is the time to seize it.

To our brave men and women in uniform: Don’t be doubtful. America will always support you. Our nation is blessed to have men and women who volunteer to serve, and are willing to risk their own lives for the safety of our fellow citizens.

Translation: They’ll have to waterboard me to get me to agree to a withdrawal from Iraq.

When I first came to Washington nearly six years ago, I was hopeful I could help change the tone here in the capital. As governor of Texas, I had successfully worked with both Democrats and Republicans to find common-sense solutions to the problems facing our state. While we made some progress on changing the tone, I’m disappointed we haven’t made more.

Translation: The President is a sociopath.

I’m confident that we can work together. I’m confident we can overcome the temptation to divide this country between red and blue. The issues before us are bigger than that and we are bigger than that. By putting this election and partisanship behind us, we can launch a new era of cooperation and make these next two years productive ones for the American people.

Translation: It’s my way or the highway.

That’s how I heard it. If you disagree, speak up.

Now, for the questions from the press:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Does the departure of Don Rumsfeld signal a new direction in Iraq? A solid majority of Americans said yesterday that they wanted some American troops, if not all, withdrawn from Iraq. Did you hear that call, and will you heed it?

THE PRESIDENT: Terry, I’d like our troops to come home, too, but I want them to come home with victory, and that is a country that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself. And I can understand Americans saying, come home. But I don’t know if they said come home and leave behind an Iraq that could end up being a safe haven for al Qaeda. I don’t believe they said that. And so, I’m committed to victory. I’m committed to helping this country so that we can come home.

Now, first part about —

Q A new direction.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, new direction. Well, there’s certainly going to be new leadership at the Pentagon. And as I mentioned in my comments, that Secretary Rumsfeld and I agree that sometimes it’s necessary to have a fresh perspective, and Bob Gates will bring a fresh perspective. He’ll also bring great managerial experience.

And he is — I had a good talk with him on Sunday in Crawford. I hadn’t — it took me a while to be able to sit down and visit with him, and I did, and I found him to be of like mind. He understands we’re in a global war against these terrorists. He understands that defeat is not an option in Iraq. And I believe it’s important that there be a fresh perspective, and so does Secretary Rumsfeld.

I don’t know how much more plainly he could say that he’s not going to change policy in Iraq. He’ll make some tactical tweaks, but no more.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You said you’re interested in changing the tone, and committed to changing the tone in Washington. Just a few days before this election, in Texas, you said that Democrats, no matter how they put it, their approach to Iraq comes down to terrorists win, America loses. What has changed today, number one? Number two, is this administration prepared to deal with the level of oversight and investigation that is possibly going to come from one chamber or two in Congress?

THE PRESIDENT: What’s changed today is the election is over, and the Democrats won. And now we’re going to work together for two years to accomplish big objectives for the country. And secondly, the Democrats are going to have to make up their mind about how they’re going to conduct their affairs.

Arrogant as ever, ain’t he?

Q Mr. President, thank you. You acknowledged that this is a message election on the war in Iraq. And so the American public today, having voted, will want to know what you mean in terms of “course correction on Iraq.” And particularly in light of this fact, that last week the Vice President pointed out that you and he aren’t running for anything anymore, and that it’s “full speed ahead on Iraqi.” So which is it? Are you listening to the voters, or are you listening to the Vice President? And what does that mean?

THE PRESIDENT: David, I believe Iraq had a lot to do with the election, but I believe there was other factors, as well. People want their Congress — congressmen to be honest and ethical. So in some races, that was the primary factor. There were different factors that determined the outcome of different races, but no question, Iraq was on people’s minds. And as you have just learned, I am making a change at the Secretary of Defense to bring a fresh perspective as to how to achieve something I think most Americans want, which is a victory.

We will work with members of Congress; we will work with the Baker-Hamilton Commission. My point is, is that while we have been adjusting, we will continue to adjust to achieve the objective. And I believe that’s what the American people want.

Somehow it seeped in their conscious that my attitude was just simply “stay the course.” “Stay the course” means, let’s get the job done, but it doesn’t mean staying stuck on a strategy or tactics that may not be working. So perhaps I need to do a better job of explaining that we’re constantly adjusting. And so there’s fresh perspective — so what the American people hear today is we’re constantly looking for fresh perspective.

But what’s also important for the American people to understand is that if we were to leave before the job is done, the country becomes more at risk. That’s what the Vice President was saying — he said, if the job is not complete, al Qaeda will have safe haven from which to launch attacks. These radicals and extremists have made it clear, they want to topple moderate governments to spread their ideology. They believe that it’s just a matter of time before we leave so they can implement their strategies. We’re just not going to let them do that. We’re going to help this government become a government that can defend, govern, and sustain itself, and an ally in the war on terror.

Again, how much more plainly can he say that he’s not changing policy? He’ll consider tactical changes, but that’s it.

I’m not sure what this was about:

THE PRESIDENT: … And so, Jim, look, I understand people don’t agree — didn’t agree with some of my decisions. I’m going to continue making decisions based upon what I think is right for the country. I’ve never been one to try to fashion the principles I believe or the decisions I make based upon trying to — kind of short-term popularity. I do understand where the people — the heart of the people. I understand they’re frustrated. I am, too, as I said the other day. I wish this had gone faster. So does Secretary Rumsfeld. But the reality is, is that it’s a tough fight, and we’re going to win the fight. And I truly believe the only way we won’t win is if we leave before the job is done.

Yes, Jim.

Q May I follow, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: I know, terrible principle. I’m sorry.

Q Thank you, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: You think I’m nuts? (Laughter.) You think — you think my sensibility has left me as a result of working hard on the campaign trail, Gregory? (Laughter.)

WTF?

Q But to follow, we were speaking about the war, and during the campaign, two very different viewpoints of the war came out. You spoke a lot, as Bret mentioned, about what you saw as the Democratic approach to the war, which you were greatly concerned about. Are you worried that you won’t be able to work with the Democrats, or do you feel like you have to prevail upon them your viewpoint?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think we’re going to have to work with them, but — just like I think we’re going to have to work with the Baker-Hamilton Commission. It’s very important that the people understand the consequences of failure. And I have vowed to the country that we’re not going to fail. We’re not going to leave before the job is done. And obviously, we’ve got a lot of work to do with some members of Congress. I don’t know how many members of Congress said, get out right now — I mean, the candidates running for Congress in the Senate. I haven’t seen that chart. Some of the comments I read where they said, well, look, we just need a different approach to make sure we succeed; well, you can find common ground there.

Translation: “OK, so I’ll talk to the Democrats and the Baker Commission if I have to, but I only want to listen to suggestions about how my policy might become more glorious than it already is.”

See, if the goal is success, then we can work together. If the goal is, get out now regardless, then that’s going to be hard to work together. But I believe the Democrats want to work together to win this aspect of the war on terror.

See?

I’m also looking forward to working with them to make sure that we institutionalize to the extent possible steps necessary to make sure future Presidents are capable of waging this war. Because Iraq is a part of the war on terror,

Translation: I’m going to bleep up the Middle East so much we won’t get out of Iraq until the 22nd century.

… and it’s — I think back to Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower. Harry Truman began the Cold War, and Eisenhower, obviously, from a different party, continued it. And I would hope that would be the spirit that we’re able to work together. We may not agree with every tactic, but we should agree that this country needs to secure ourselves against an enemy that would like to strike us again.

Translation: We should agree that I’m right.

This enemy is not going away after my presidency.

And I look forward to working with them. And I truly believe that Congresswoman Pelosi and Harry Reid care just about as much — they care about the security of this country, like I do. They see — no leader in Washington is going to walk away from protecting the country. We have different views on how to do that, but their spirit is such that they want to protect America. That’s what I believe.

Just like I talked about the troops. I meant what I said. Look, the people that’s — are going to be looking at this election — the enemy is going to say, well, it must mean America is going to leave. And the answer is, no, that doesn’t — not what it means. Our troops are wondering whether or not they’re going to get the support they need after this election. Democrats are going to support our troops just like Republicans will. And the Iraqis have got to understand this election — as I said, don’t be fearful. In other words, don’t look at the results of the elections and say, oh, no, America is going to leave us before the job is complete. That’s not what’s going to happen, Jim.

How many more bleeping ways can he say, “I’m not changing the course”?

Several reporters questioned how Bush could pledge to stick by Rumsfeld last week and dump him this week. Bush’s answers basically boiled down to what I said last week was just politics, because of the election. But in another part of the questions he said “I’m still going to try to speak plainly about what I think are the important priorities of the country.” OK.

Share Button
23 Comments

Bush Speaks

-->
Bush Administration, elections, Iraq War

I’ll link to a transcript when I find one, but in so many words Bush is saying he’s not going to change Iraq policy or any other policy.

Fun fun fun.

Update: A reporter asked Bush if the troops will come home, and Bush said he wants them to come home to victory. He’s committed, he says. Doesn’t say to what, or to where (snort) but he’s committed. Defeat is not an option, he says. So the fight is on.

Update: Bush was making noises about “changing the tone.” A reporter brought up Bush’s line that if Democrats win, America loses. Bush flipped it off, in so many words, and said Dems need to consider how they are going to conduct themselves.

I get the impression that Bush wants to blame Republican ethical problems on Republican defeat. He’s bringing in a new SecDef in order to find “change” in Iraq. He’s OK with “adjusting” tactics and strategy, but he’s digging in his heels over Iraq and letting Congress know there will be no change in policy from the White House.

Update: Lordy, he’s talking about how “future presidents” will need to continue the war in Iraq.

Update: Mike Allen wrote earlier:

Despite his dramatically weakened political position, the President plans to stand up to Democrats and challenge them to work with him on issues he has been promoting. But the opposition now has little reason to cave.

President George W. Bush plans to respond to last night’s Republican wipeout with a combination of conciliation and firmness that is unlikely to pacify an empowered and emboldened opposition. Aides say that beginning with an appearance in the East Room this afternoon, Bush will try to cast the blue wave as an opportunity rather than a defeat, and will vow to plunge ahead with transformative goals like reworking the Social Security system for fiscal longevity. “The same group of problems are there,” White House Press Secretary Tony Snow tells TIME. “You just will have some different people in the leadership. We have an opportunity to have an activist last two years of this Presidency, which will be good for the country.” Snow, who worked conservative talk radio for three hours yesterday afternoon, said Democrats now “have to decide whether they’re going to be part of the solution, or are going to try to shut down the government for two years and point fingers at the President.”

In other words, Bush’s tune is still “my way or the highway.”

Advisers expect a battle royale over the balance of powers if Democrats use their new subpoena power to try to conduct what the White House is already calling “witch hunts.” Bush and Vice President Cheney have made the expansion of executive power one of their hallmarks, and advisers say they do not plan to give up any of the ground they have won without a fight all the way to the Supreme Court. “We’re going to have a fierce constitutional showdown over the boundaries of power between the executive and legislative branches,” one adviser said. “The executive usually wins those battles, so we think we’ll consolidate our gains.”

Oh, this will be a fun couple of years.

Update: The speech is over. Chris Matthews is making noises about how Bush is responding to the will of the voters on change in Iraq, but what I heard was a non-response response. But Matthews also says that Bush broke with Cheney on Rumsfeld, who wanted Rummy to stay, or else wanted to replace him with a neocon.

Gates has ties to the elder Bush and his old national security team, including James Baker and Brent Scowcroft. We’ll see if that means anything.

Share Button
9 Comments

Rummy!

-->
Bush Administration, Donald Rumsfeld

MSNBC says Rummy is stepping down!!!

Update: The princeling will be speaking in a few minutes. I predict the Administration is throwing Rummy under the bus in an attempt to blame him for the problems in Iraq so that Shrubby can stay the course.

Update update: Robert Gates will be offered the SecDef job.

Share Button
6 Comments

Montana!

-->
Democratic Party, elections

MSNBC just called Montana for Tester. That means the Dems have five Senate seats for certain, and the result will be no worse than a tie.

Share Button
1 Comment

America Won

-->
elections

Now that the real election is almost over, the Spin Election will begin. The Spin Election will be the Right’s effort to persuade America that what happened last night didn’t actually happen, or if it did happen, it didn’t count. If the past is our guide, the Left will get flustered and do some foot-stamping, but they will be unable to mount a unified counter-propaganda campaign.

However, this time, it may not matter.

British America-watcher Martin Kettle writes,

Many conservatives will be in denial about these results this morning. They will be as angry in defeat as they have so often been angry in victory. They will try to dismiss them as a poor performance, falling short of Democratic expectations and thus in some bizarre way a vindication of the administration. But these elections have been a decisive rebuff not just to the president but also to the arrogance that has increasingly been the hallmark of both the Bush administration and the Republican congressional leadership.

Ugly triumphalism has been a central feature of the past dozen years. Too many Republicans have too often spoken and behaved as though their earlier electoral victories entitled them to ride roughshod over the very idea that large numbers of Americans passionately disagreed with their approach. The redistricting on which these elections have been fought was a case in point – a blatant gerrymander designed to prevent ethnic minorities and liberals from being properly represented in Washington.

Don’t forget that Republicans made a major effort to redraw districts in a way that would ensure future victories for the Right. Don’t forget that Republicans have worked overtime to find (increasingly outrageous) ways to suppress votes. Breaching these defenses required more desire for change than election numbers alone reveal. And I suspect that rightie spin — in effect, telling voters that their votes didn’t really mean anything — will just piss off voters even more.

Talk about sour grapes; in today’s WSJ Opinion Journal I see no acknowledgment of what just happened. Instead, the mouthpieces for the VRWC grumble about negative campaigning (“Ultimately, the reaction to this ceaseless negative barrage, if it continues unchecked, will be the rejection of both major political parties.”) and a smug report that Acorn, “a feisty, union-backed activist group … is finally coming under scrutiny.” They’re preparing a “vote fraud” excuse, it seems.

Many on the Right (and so-called Center) are comforting themselves by declaring that last night’s Democratic winners are, on the whole, not really a radical bunch. “[M]any of the Democrats at the vanguard of today’s political ‘revolution’ are not exactly left-wing zealots,” Arthur Brooks wrote yesterday. David “The Cabbage” Brooks writes, “[T]he voters have voted for change, but they haven’t gone overboard. They did not choose the Ned Lamont wing of the Democratic Party.”

In other words, having constructed a straw man extremist Left to scare voters into keeping Republicans in office, they are relieved that this figment of their own imaginations hasn’t materialized.

David Brooks even expresses relief that the High Priestess of Moonbattery, Nanci Pelosi, “seems to understand” her humble place in the political cosmos. “All in all, an end to the era of base-mobilizing politics and a victory for the center (albeit with a Democratic tilt). Nancy Pelosi seems to understand this. She’s striking a bipartisan pose, not a triumphalist one.” Never mind that she’s been making nothing but bipartisan noises for the past several weeks, to the consternation of many lefties.

So, in the next few days the Rightie Echo Chamber will be claiming this election doesn’t mean anything because the Dems that won were not the barking moonbats that pre-election rightie propaganda had made them out to be.

However, as Stirling Newberry documents, yesterday’s election signaled a decisive turn away from the constrictive and toxic ideologies of the extreme Right and toward real progressivism.

And consider: Last night some Republican incumbents were re-elected to Senate and House seats and governor’s mansions. But as of this morning no such seats or mansions switched from Democrat to Republican. A few contests have yet to be decided. A couple of elections were won by Independents. But right now, the Republicans are shut out. This is rare. If the trend holds, it may be unprecedented. We’ll see.

Billmon writes
, “It’s going to take Adam Nagourney a while to spin this as a Democratic failure, but I’m sure he’ll give it the old college try.” Heh.

Update: Credit to us bloggers. Also, Ezra channels Mahablog.

Update update: Glenn Greenwald

The notion that this is a victory for some sort of mealy-mouthed, Bush-lite, glorified centrism is absurd on its face. Democrats won by aggressively attacking the Bush movement, not by trying to be a slightly modified and duller version of it. The accommodationist tack is what they attempted in 2002 and 2004 when they were crushed. They won in this election by making their opposition clear and assertive.

Many of the Democrats who won were exactly those candidates who were supported most enthusiastically by the most liberal blogs. Atrios, for instance, raised money for only a handful of challengers and many of them won — against Republican incumbents in previously red districts: Jon Tester, Patrick Murphy, Joe Sestak, Nick Lampson, Chris Carney. The same is true for the FDL/C&L list of candidates (Amy Klobuchar, Ben Cardin, Sherood Brown, Kirsten Gillibrand) and the Daily Kos/MyDD list (Jim Webb, Tim Walz).

Liberal blogs tend to support underdog Democratic candidates who are challenging Republican incumbents or open seats, i.e., the races that are most difficult to win. And yet a huge bulk of the winning Democratic candidates who won in those races were the ones supported by liberal blogs. And many blog-favored Democrats who lost were ones running in very red districts against GOP incumbents — such as Angie Paccione (against the heinous Marilyn Musgrave) and Victoria Wulslin (against the equally horrible Jean Schmidt) — and they came very close to winning.

Given those facts, the idea that this was some great repudiation of the blog-wing of the Democratic Party or that it was an endorsement of Broder-like, plodding centrism is purely wishful thinking on the part of those who wish it were so. The Democrats who won have one thing in common — aggressive and unapologetic opposition to what the Republicans have become.

Share Button
8 Comments

Whoa

-->
Democratic Party, elections, Republican Party

I got home, flipped on the TV and saw Claire McCaskill announcing she has won. This is a great surprise. Talent hasn’t conceded, nor has Allen in Virginia, although Webb has claimed victory also. But if McCaskill and Webb truly have won, this means we just need one more Senate seat to take the Senate, and right now it looks as if Montana could do it.

Whoa.

CNN is saying that the Dems have picked up 25 House seats, but MSNBC says more. Great.

Update: MSNBC projects McCaskill the winner in Missouri, with 89% of votes counted, and Talent has conceded. It’s official. So now control of the Senate is up to Montana and Virginia.

Hey, Karl, how you doin’? Havin’ fun?

Share Button
10 Comments


    About this blog

    About Maha
    Comment Policy

    Vintage Mahablog
    Email Me
















    eXTReMe Tracker













      Technorati Profile