The Left against Democracy? By their rhetoric, the Left claim to be (small-d) democrats. That is, of course, unless the demos, the people, vote contrary to Democrats' wishes. A case in point is Ross Baker, who simply cannot believe what the American people did on Tuesday. The Republican victory was a slim one, indeed, and any perceived mandate must be approached warily. But it was a clear endorsement of the president and his agenda--not free reign to legislate without restraint, but an approval of the president's general course of action. Baker's column reads like one of Ms. Streisand-Brolin's ghost-written "truth alerts," although the man is a professor of political science. And having already dissected Barbra's response, I won't give Mr. Baker the same treatment--they just make it too easy. Let me just mention one thing. Baker cites in disbelief the fact that 21 of 24 and 230 of 246 NRA-endorsed Senate and House candidates won on Tuesday. It's actually kind of humorous that he has himself in such tizzy--how could people actually support the right to bear arms?!?! So absurd is the thought to him that he casts aside any notion that Americans actually support gun rights and attributes the result to the Marxist phenomenon of "false consciousness"--the people have been deceived into surrendering their true interests and adopting someone else's. Where have we heard this before? Oh, yes. Demonstrators in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 couldn't possibly have wanted freedom; they were fooled by "reactionaries." And the Soviets brutally put down the resistance. (Strategic reasons factored in, as well.) But, hey, if that's the company the Left wants to keep, I'm not going to stop them.

A Happy Time (well, at least not for Babs). Barbra Streisand-Brolin has finally posted her response to the election. It sure took her long enough. I guess she had to wait until she read enough of Krugman and Kristof to know what to think.

It is a sad time. The Democratic Party was not able to articulate a clear message - was not able to convey the very real and very many differences between the two parties. They did not allow the American people to make a meaningful choice. They never articulated what it was we were voting for, and in doing so they failed to motivate their base to go to the polls. The Republicans, on the other hand, spoke directly to their constituency and gave them a reason to vote.

"Not able to articulate a clear message"? That's exactly right, Barbra, and you did your part to guarantee as much. You "endorsed" every single Democratic candidate for House and Senate, including pro-life, anti-tax, pro-war, and, dare I say, even conservative Democrats. Boy, that'll sure fire up the base. And it takes more than the Republican base to win elections. The GOP spoke directly to the middle, to the independents, and gave them a reason to vote, all while also appealing to their traditional constituencies. Oh, if only you had held one more gala, sung an extra song, sent one more fax, fallen for another internet hoax--the party would surely have been victorious then.

Instead of standing up to the Republicans and indicating their differences, the Democrats went along with the president on tax cuts and Iraq- and were voted out anyway. The American people want leaders - they want people who convey a strong message and stand for something. The Republicans have done this well...even though what they stand for is against the interests of most Americans. Now it is time for the Democrats to stop operating out of fear.

I can only ask, once again, why you, Barbra, endorsed those selfsame Democrats who voted for lower taxes and for standing firmly against Iraq. You are right about one thing: the American people do want leaders, and they've found a great one in George W. Bush. And, geez, the Republican party must have the voting public hoodwinked, huh? To force the electorate to vote for them, even though they stand "against the interests of most Americans"--those wily Republicans! Maybe most Americans actually agree with the GOP. Nah, couldn't be.

Because the differences are there. The Republicans are excited to, in Trent Lott's words, "roll" their agenda through the Congress. And it's an agenda all of us will have to live with - for the worse. Tax cuts for the rich, destruction of the environment, a prescription drug plan that covers only a very small percentage of seniors, an inadequate pension reform bill, an overly aggressive foreign policy - that's all on the agenda.

And there is a horde of extremist federal judicial nominees, deemed by the Democratically-controlled Senate as too conservative for confirmation, just waiting to get rushed through the nomination process. These judges are guaranteed to threaten our civil liberties, a woman's right to choose, civil rights and environmental protection. And they will be around long after the president is gone.

Now wait a second here. I thought you wanted to stop operating out of fear, and yet all you want to do is scare people. Hey, if they didn't buy it this time, they'll definitely go for it next time. Right? Fear and lies--that's your strategy, Barbra, that's all you've got. This "tax cuts for the rich" business obviously doesn't work, and, what's more, it's simply not true. I seem to recall my parents receiving their Bush-tax-cut check--and they are a far cry from being rich. And, really, when's the last time Republicans destroyed a natural wonder? Yes, they do support drilling in ANWR, but that can be done safely. And the Alaskan people support it. But I guess you and your Sierra Club friends know what's best for Alaska. Didn't Mary Landrieu support limited oil and gas development in the Gulf of Mexico? Yes, but she's no Democrat, is she, since she voted for that tax cut? That didn't stop you from endorsing her. And then there are those pesky judicial nominees, who must be evil and extremist since Senate Democrats found them "too conservative for confirmation." Actually, only a select cadre of left-liberals thought so and prevented a floor vote, where many of these candidates would have passed with bipartisan support. And their definition of an extremist? Anyone who refuses to find a right to abortion in the Constitution.

So as we move forward, I, for one, will continue to urge the Democrats, even as, or especially as, the minority/opposition party, to be vocal in conveying the differences to the American public. Because this is not the time to give up fighting for what is important. There is too much at stake. The Democrats must once again return to their roots as a strong and directed party fighting for the betterment of the poor, working and middle-class Americans that make up the great majority of our country.

The Democrats who stood up to the president and showed strong opposition leadership were the ones that won on Tuesday. Hopefully, by 2004, the party - and the people - will get the message.

And who were those Democrats who opposed the president with forceful leadership and were victorious? I'm drawing a blank here. And if there were any such people, they most likely won because they were incumbents. But Democrats, do not fear--Barbra's on your side. She's going to be your shadow for the foreseeable future, telling you what's best for America, reminding you what the Democratic party should stand for. If you don't define the difference between the two parties, don't worry, because she will. And she knows. She's a national celebrity, after all. Wait, what was I saying? Democrats, be very afraid.

Seeing the Truth. Good news from Georgia, where three Democratic state senators have switched parties, giving Republicans control of that body, 29-27, for the first time since Reconstruction. And Governor-Elect Sonny Perdue himself is also a political convert.

Honor Our Troops. Take a moment to add your name to a Thank You message to our men and women in uniform. It is National Military Appreciation Month, and, of course, Monday is Veterans Day. Show them your support.

Bases, Left and Right. Peggy Noonan takes a look at Democratic soul-searching and makes a great comparison of the Republican and Democratic bases.

The Democrat's base is left-wing. It is a worse problem for the Democrats than the Republicans' base is for them. The Republican base is simply essentially conservative; Republicans in power are conservative too but less so; they live in what they call the real world. They achieve what they can, explaining to the base what is possible. Sometimes the base gets balky, but mostly it follows. After all, they're all conservatives together.

The problem the Democrats have with their base is that it isn't liberal in the way the Democratic leadership in general is liberal. It is left-wing, and some parts of it are way left-wing. The last socialists are there, the warriors of race and class; there are environmentalists who want to set loggers on fire, people who think George W. Bush killed Paul Wellstone, activists whose only concern in the world is abortion rights, and people who support capital punishment for only one crime, smoking in public. Soon they will demand the death penalty for smoking in private. (Are there radicals and nuts in the Republican base? Sure. But 20 years of observation tells me there aren't as many and they don't have the same clout. Moreover, Republican candidates are somewhat protected from them. The protection comes from the media, which hate nutty right-wingers more than they dislike Republicans.)

The left-wing base of the Democratic party assails its leaders for supporting war in Iraq--they're spineless sell-outs. They vote for Nader. The (non-nutty) right-wing base of the GOP, for the most part, still votes Republican, even when the party compromises on school vouchers or immigration and doesn't push hard enough on abortion. They don't vote for Pat Buchanan. Our government--especially when divided and almost evenly split--requires compromise to function effectively, a process which often produces middle-of-the-road solutions. As a result, left-liberal idealists and utopians, demanding action right here and now, tend to abandon their elected officials; conservatives, attuned to reality and aware of its limitations, are more likely to stick it out, if only because the spirit of the party reflects their beliefs when government does not. Partly, I think this speaks to liberals' (or maybe just ideologues in general?) preference for ideas and conservatives' for principles--in the sense that Metternich understood them: an idea is like a fixed gun in a fortress, able to fire in only one direction, but a principle is a gun fixed on a revolving base, capable of multidirectional fire. The Democratic base, therefore, is much more difficult to accommodate, a particular problem when that party must appeal to increasing numbers of moderate to moderate-conservative voters.

The Word Is Out. Thanks to Religious Left Watch and Atheist to a Theist for graciously linking to this humble blog. I need not remind you that they are always worth reading.

The Good Fight. "Only as children of God are we equal; all other claims to equality--social, economic, racial, intellectual, sexual--only serve in practice to intensify inequality. For this reason Your commandment to love our fellow men follows after, and depends upon, the commandment to love God." --Malcolm Muggeridge, Jesus Rediscovered

Back in Business. The restored Senate leadership:

Agriculture: Thad Cochran (Mississippi)
Appropriations: Ted Stevens (Alask.)
Armed Services: John Warner (Virg.)
Banking: Richard Shelby (Alab.)
Budget: Don Nickles (Okla.)
Commerce: John McCain (Ariz.)
Energy: Pete Domenici (N. Mex.)
Environment: James M. Inhofe (Okla.)
Finance: Chuck Grassley (Iowa)
Foreign Relations: Richard Lugar (Ind.)
Governmental Affairs: Susan Collins (Maine)
Health and Education: Judd Gregg (N. Hamp.)
Intelligence (Select): Pat Roberts (Kans.)
Judiciary: Orrin Hatch (Utah)
Small Business: Kit Bond (Missouri)
Veterans Affairs: Arlen Specter (Penn.)

And to think I once cringed at the mention of Arlen Specter. Come to think of it, I still do (maybe it's that whole "not proven" business), but it's a good cringe compared to my reaction to current Chairman Jay Rockefeller (W. Virg.).

Spin As He May... (Soon-to-be former?) DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe responded to the election results yesterday. Several points are worth looking at.

So where do we find ourselves now? Basically the same place we were after the 2000 election. At 50-50. Parity. Not much has changed. As I said, the Republican advantage was a tactical advantage, not an issue advantage. Last night's results simply don't reflect an ideological tip in favor of the Republicans.

Almost but not quite. In fact, the GOP, overall, won 53-47 on Tuesday. And, actually, it was an issue advantage. On the important issues, Republicans had a clear vision and pushed for it. Democrats conceded nearly every issue to the GOP and had nothing but Carville's "it's the economy, stupid" mantra--criticism without a plan.

This election was also fought largely on Republican turf. They clearly had the home-field advantage, with 9 of the 10 competitive Senate races, for example, taking place in states carried by Bush in 2000. But let's take off our Beltway blinders for a second and look at what happened in state races around the country. As I said, it was an extraordinary night for Democratic gubernatorial candidates. Fifty-five percent of Americans will wake up this morning living under a Democratic Governor. We picked up the key Midwestern governorships -- Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Wisconsin. We flipped governorships in competitive presidential states like Tennessee, Arizona and New Mexico. We won in Kansas, and we scored upsets to elect new Democratic governors in Oklahoma and Dick Cheney's home state of Wyoming.

Come on, Terry, I thought you were going to take those blinders off. 55% of the nation may wake up under Democratic governors in January (not "this morning"), but 100% of the nation will wake up under a Republican House and Senate in about two months and probably, too, in a few weeks when those Missouri results are certified. And let's look more closely at those governorship races. Democrats may have been successful in the Midwest--Pennsylvania is not Midwestern, I should add--and they may have made some gains. But many races were in Democratic states. Hawaii, Massachusetts, Maryland, Rhode Island, Minnesota, and Vermont all went Republican--each one voted for Gore in 2000, with 56%, 60%, 57%, 61%, 48%, and 51%, respectively. Incumbents Roy Barnes in Georgia and Jim Hodges were defeated, and it appears that Don Siegelman in Alabama may also have lost. And McAuliffe's Target #1, Jeb Bush, won a resounding victory in Florida.

Folks, Democrats are in good shape as we look ahead to the upcoming cycle.

Speaking of those blinders... Where've you been, Terry? A unified Republican government may, indeed, make it easier to oppose in 2004, but it is most certainly not a good thing when the media talks about Democrats in disarray, forced to do some soul-searching, when your veteran House minority leader calls it quits, when your Senate Majority leader declares, "This is the worst night I've had." And, yes, Terry, some sources--and not just conservatives--are reporting that your party is "without a national leader." Before you can even think about taking on the Republicans successfully in 2004, all this has to be fixed--not an easy task when the party is going to move leftward and away from the American people in an attempt to define itself. It's going to be a long two years.

Will Agrees. In my torrent of posts yesterday, I gave mention to Jim Jeffords, who surely looks the fool now, and to Bill Frist, a man on the up and up. George Will had this to say today:

Not all winners and losers were on Tuesday's ballots. Jeffords, who after 34 years in public office as a Republican turned Washington upside down by defecting to support Senate Democrats, now pays the price of his versatility of conviction. And Tennessee Sen. Bill Frist was the chief architect of the Republicans' recapture of the Senate, as candidate-recruiter and resource-allocator. He has made friends among Republican activists and honed skills that may serve him when the president's successor is to be chosen.

Well, great minds do think alike.

Which Founding Father Are You? Looks like I'm....

Take the quiz.

I think I'm probably closer to John Adams, but, hey, nothing wrong with GW. (By way of Religious Left Watch.)

Ralph Reed, Ralph Reed, Ralph Reed. Score one for this guy, the GA GOP Chairman. In Georgia: First Republican governor since 1872. Liberal senator defeated. Democratic Speaker of the GA House, a 42-year veteran of that body, its leader for 28 years, and "the most powerful Democrat in Georgia government," ousted. Republican majority in its US House delegation preserved, despite Democrat-led reapportionment. Not too shabby.

Gingrich's Genius. Bruce Bartlett argues that there has long been a conservative/liberal division in Congress but that it has only become a Republican/Democrat split in recent years as conservative southern Democrats switched party allegiances or as Republicans took over their seats. Bartlett attributes this change to Newt Gingrich:

It was Newt Gingrich who made this happen. For years, Republicans had given a pass to conservative Democrats in Southern states. But he argued that Republicans could never take control of Congress unless they won these seats. Mr. Gingrich then began pressuring these Democrats by putting up strong Republican candidates against them. Once they had to work to get re-elected, most simply retired or became Republicans.

It was Mr. Gingrich's brilliant strategic vision, which said Congress' historical conservative majority could be converted into a Republican majority, that changed the political dynamics. But he was only taking advantage of an existing conservative base in the nation, that had been split between Republicans and Southern Democrats, rather than creating a new conservative electorate.

If it's any consolation... Republicans have increased their majority in the PA House and maintained it in the Senate--thus ensuring that big-city slickster Ed Rendell will not have free reign in Harrisburg.

Bush's Achievement.. The NYT sums it up nicely, believe it or not (well, at least in one sentence):

Mr. Bush then risked his own personal political standing by campaigning long and hard for Republicans in close races, energizing the Republican base and reminding undecided voters whose side he was on.

Of course, the choice undecided voters had to make might not have been all that hard--it was either Bush's clearly defined plan for the country or the Democrats' vat of nothing. "They had their chance. They have not led. We will." So said Bush about the Clinton administration, and the same could be said for the year-and-a-half Democratic Senate. Bush has led, and this is his win--and the party's chance to lead. Let's hope we will.

Replacing Strom. I haven't heard anyone mention this, but we're poised to get a new President Pro Tempore in the Senate, now that Republicans have won control and Strom Thurmond is retiring. Looks like Ted Stevens of Alaska is poised to take over the job.

Onward and Upward. Republicans have started to GAIN House seats. Plus 2 right now.

Who's Laughing Now? Not Jim Jeffords, that's for sure.

Even Sweeter. FoxNews is predicting a Talent victory in Missouri and, hence, the restoration of the Republican majority in the Senate.

GOP Men of the Night. There are many of them tonight, for sure, and the victorious candidates must rank high. But my vote goes to President Bush, who campaigned extensively with a vision for the country and fired the base up. Don't mess with Texas, and don't mess with Bush. I think Sen. Bill Frist, M.D., who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, has to look pretty good right now, too. If this guy wasn't already going places in the party and in the Senate (I think he was), man, he's a star on the rise now.

No, the Other One. Republican pro-lifer Steve King (Iowa-5) is going to Congress.

Somehow, I'm not too upset. Republican Rep. Connie Morella has lost her seat in Maryland's 8th District. Although she was a vote for a Republican speaker and although she served her constituents well, I'm not too sorry to see the liberal Republican head home.

How Sweet It Is. CNN has just put Republicans, with 19 races still undecided, over the top in the House. Denny Hastert will remain Speaker, and Tom "The Hammer" DeLay will be Majority Leader. Now let's see if we can increase the margin.

Time To Move South? Well, not quite, although Rendell's election in my home state of PA makes it tempting. Still, the South has proved itself the base of the Republican party. Florida re-elected Jeb Bush, in spite of his being specially targetted by the DNC. Georgia ousted two incumbent Democrats--Sen. Max Cleland and very popular Gov. Roy Barnes, who was rumored to have dark horse potential for 2004. North Carolina elected Liddy Dole to replace Jesse Helms--54 to 45, despite late predictions of Dole's demise. South Carolina replaced the retiring Sen. Strom Thurmond with Lindsey Graham, 54 to 44, and the incumbent Democratic governor was defeated. Louisiana forced incumbent Sen. Mary Landrieu into a (messy) December run-off. In Alabama, the Republican challenger is giving incumbent Gov. Don Siegelman a run for his money--49 to 49 with 97% reporting. And, of course, Texas is Bush Country, but we never doubted that, did we?

A Mixed Bag...so far. Drudge has put up early exit polls for various races. It's far too early to make any certain predictions, and after 2000, I'm reluctant to believe anything at all until I see the certification form signed by the governor. But for what it's worth:

Minnesota: Coleman up 3 over Mondale
Texas: Cornyn up 8 over Kirk
Missouri: Talent leads Carnahan
Arkansas: Pryor leads Hutchinson easily
North Carolina: Bowles leads Dole
Georgia: Chambliss up 4 over Cleland
Colorado: Strickland leads Allard easily
Louisiana: Landrieu headed for runoff
New Jersey: Lautenberg leads Forrester
South Dakota: Thune up 3 over Johnson
Florida: Bush leads McBride

Looks like we may see some surprises tonight--Georgia maybe?

Meanwhile, Talking Points Memo has also posted some figures (3:49 pm). Just some highlights here: Pryor and Strickland have double-digit leads; Johnson , Mondale, and Shaheen (NH) are all up. Carnahan and Kirk are both down ten. Bowles and Cleland are also down. Doesn't really add too much clarity to Drudge's numbers, although it appears quite likely that Republicans will lose Colorado and Arkansas. Most of the rest remain toss-ups.

Election 2002 for Dummies. John Fund (always worth reading) has an "hour-by-hour" preview of the election returns, listing states and races by the times the polls close and suggesting possible indicators at each point.

Quotes of the Day. John Fund has them both in his review of the Coleman-Mondale debate:

The affable Mr. Coleman cleaned Mr. Mondale's grandfather clock.

Mr. Mondale represented an almost perfect time capsule of Great Society liberalism.

First Test of McCain-Feingold? Robert Alt offers a most astute comment in his election predictions today:

Landrieu (D) won’t make it to 50%, thereby forcing a run-off. What no one has noted is that the run-off will be the first (and in my prediction the only) race in the country to be conducted under the full McCain-Feingold rules. The law kicks in on Wednesday, and the court doesn’t hear the case until December. Thus, even the most unconstitutional provisions--like the restrictions on private groups running advertisements within 60 days of an election--will be in place for this election. This should prove to be very entertaining--particularly if this seat decides the Senate: you will have parties and outside groups likely moving for preliminary injunctions to permit additional spending. Don’t be surprised if the Dems are the first to fire a shot across the McCain-Feingold bow if control of the Senate is at stake.

Democrats and the Rule of Law. The Yale Daily News is reporting today that a Yale Democratic Party activist and operative is being charged with nine counts of ballot fraud. It's probably not surprising, especially in light of the Democrats' attempts, in recent years, to bypass election laws--e.g. St. Louis (dead voters, dead candidate) and Milwaukee (cigarettes for votes) in 2000, South Dakota in 2002 (more dead voters), New Jersey 2002. The list could go on and on. And with this allegation here in New Haven against a young Democrat, I don't think there's much reason to hope that party will suddenly decide to obey the law; for them, apparently, election laws do not constitute a "controlling legal authority." But the story gets better. Granted, these are just allegations at this point, but I don't know how wise it is to leap blindly to this fellow's defense. But that didn't stop two--a party ward co-chair (everybody is a co-leader of something in these organizations; I think the women's center has at least five "co-coordinators") and the Yale-elected alderman--from coming readily to his defense:

Michael Montano is one of the most ethical, law-abiding people I know. I know this is completely bogus--the worst kind of perversion of justice.

Ah, yes, Montano--only a local activist--has been targeted for persecution for no good reason at all. And the Office of the Chief State's Attorney, the state Elections Enforcement Commission, and the US Postal Inspection Service (who all conducted the investigation) are obviously going on nothing but bald partisanship and personal hatred. But it gets better, this time from the alderman, a Yale junior.

Michael's a real grass-roots progressive working to make this town better. I think it's inexcusable how an honest mistake on his part is being exploited for political gains. I support him fully and believe that he has the best interests of the people of New Haven at heart.

Could there be a better description of the Democratic party in 2002--breaking the law = a grassroots, progressive activity on behalf of the people?

The Good Fight. "I am come to a time of life, in which it is not permitted that we should trifle with our existence. I am fallen into a state of the world, that will not suffer me to play at little sports, or to enfeeble the part I am bound to take, by smaller collateral considerations. I cannot proceed, as if things went on in the beaten circle of events, such as I have known them for half a century. The moral state of mankind fills me with dismay and horrors. The abyss of Hell itself seems to yawn before me. I must act, think, and feel according to the exigencies of this tremendous reason." --Edmund Burke, from a letter to Lord Fitzwilliam, Nov. 29, 1793

Are you a fascist? Try out the online version of the Adorno Authoritarian Personality test, which seeks to predict "fascist receptivity." The test has been discredited since its creation some fifty years ago, but it is interesting nonetheless. I scored much lower than I thought I would--a 3.73, which makes me "disciplined but tolerant; a true American." So much for all of you who believe me a totalitarian wanna-be.

Saturday Night Dead. Yeah, it's a hackneyed description for SNL these days, but it's never been more true. Last night's show is probably the worst episode I've seen in years--rivaling those dark days in the mid- to late-90s abyss of humorless drivel. Recycled jokes--that now-annoying question-and-answer monologue. Even recycled sets--the same set was used in two back-to-back sketches (The Bachelor parody and the after-dinner game of "celebrity"). It seems that Will Ferrell is a bigger loss than I thought and that he was the driving force of the show in recent years. His George W. Bush developed from an uncertain endeavor into a masterful imitation of gestures, expressions, and speech. His solid performances in any number of sketches (his bearded Lover-Professor sticks out) masked the declining quality of the rest of the cast. Jimmy Fallon becomes increasingly less funny--his conveyed innocence and his Sandler-esque approach no longer hold water. Chris Kattan, who has the potential for many a laugh, seldom appears anymore, and the same old Mango and Peepers sketches are stale. Darrell Hammond's impersonations are, as always, dead-on, and yet they, too, no longer appeal as they once did. These are talented, even gifted performers, so I think the biggest problem is the writing--it's simply not funny AT ALL. Just look at last night's bullhorn-in-the-courtroom sketch...absolutely pathetic, almost as though it were just tossed together as some sort of last resort to fill the hour and a half. I'm willing to bear with the new members as they find their niche on the show, but they don't seem to be going very far, and, unfortunately, the talent simply doesn't seem to be there. And even the relatively older ones--such as Maya Rudolph and Tina Fey--do not grow on the viewer. Yes, it may be harsh to compare these people to such past greats (and geniuses) as Dana Carvey, Mike Myers, and Phil Hartman--let alone Chevy Chase or Dan Aykroyd or, of course, Belush--or to hold later seasons up, for example, to those classic years of the early 90s. But SNL is an institution, one with high standards for talent and quality, both in terms of its cast and its whole presentation. It has a reputation. And it is, by no means whatsoever, living up to that legacy. Yeah, they're entitled to an off show and maybe even an off season, and maybe to a cast that simply doesn't "click" (and the current one obviously does not), but there seems to be an unfortunate downward trend. Can the show survive such a decline much longer?

Heard at Yale. "Postmodernism is a big joke, and it's being played on us." --Yale Diplomat-in-residence and Professor Charles Hill.