Well, not really -- but the headline sure caught your attention, didn't it?
In light of the past three days' worth of debate, in which Republicans such as John McCain of Arizona griped about cost and wanting desperately to protect the same Medicare program that the GOP has traditionally railed against, Democrat Chris Dodd of Connecticut on Wednesday offered this threat:
If the GOP keeps delaying the process -- with endless debate and other obstruction tactics -- then, Dodd told Jeff Muskus of The Huffington Post, they should say bye-bye to their Christmas vacation.
The Senate is scheduled to break on Dec. 18, and Republicans have hoped to stall the health care debate through the New Year. But if Dodd -- and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) -- makes good on his threat, the Senate could be working on Christmas Eve trying to iron out health care details while the children sleep and Santa jet-sets around the world to bestow the world's youth with gifts.
Whether the threat stands remains to be seen; Senate Democrats -- along with those in the House -- made a similar threat over the summer, saying they would forgo the August recess in order to work on the bill. Such a thing never happened, and the fiasco of the August town halls ensued.
(To be fair, much of the fiasco was a result of the mainstream media focusing incessantly on the faux-grassroots, anti-reform screamers who were nothing more than a well-funded, extremely loud minority. If the media had given equal focus and air time to those who were at the town halls in favor of reform, the debate might look different today.)
Chances are, Senator Dodd is grandstanding for the sake of a progressive base that is growing more and more concerned with regards to this issue. As people in Washington hail health care reform passing the House and coming up for debate in the Senate as a victory, some are worried the bill doesn't go far enough in terms of cost control or expansion of coverage -- and the abortion amendment that was snuck into the House bill has brought its own set of heavy baggage into the debate.
But if making threats is what gets the Republican minority to stop trying to derail a domestic initiative without at least letting it come to a vote -- if a bill falls because 51 Senators vote against it, then so be it -- then I applaud Senator Dodd for what he said. That said, I want him and other Senate Democrats to live up to his word.
And while he's at it, I would love it if he would actually do something about his colleague, Joe Lieberman. If I'm Dodd -- or Reid -- I start dangling that committee chairmanship in Lieberman's face and tell him to behave or see his favorite little toy handed to someone else.
But I've already written about that before.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
President Obama Announces New Afghan Strategy
As President Barack Obama gave a national address Tuesday night at West Point, where he laid out his new strategy for the war in Afghanistan, one prevailing thought kept creeping into my head:
How many of the young cadets sitting in that audience were going to die as a result of this decision?
I don't ask that question to be glib or cute or sarcastic; I realize that war, justified or otherwise, always has a price, and I understand that those who choose to serve in the military during wartime understand that sacrifice and what might ultimately happen; that's one of the things that makes their service -- and the decision of the cadets in that room Tuesday night -- so admirable. We may disagree about the necessity of war or the correct strategy, but I think we can all agree that the men and women we send to fight these wars are a fine example of this country's strength and grace, and they are far greater Americans than I will ever be.
As expected, President Obama announced on Tuesday that he would send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan over the next six months, while also hoping for additional resources from some of his NATO allies.
NATO allies have, to this point, not wholeheartedly embraced the move.
This country has been at war in Afghanistan since 2001, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, and what was once a justified offensive aimed at bringing down a terroristic mastermind has become a qaugmire that seems to have no pleasant way out.
When most presidents make the case for war, they are bombastic, waving the American flag to rally the masses behind the cause without really diving into the all too stark realities of military combat. President Obama did not give such a speech on Tuesday; he was realistic, frank and acted as if he truly understood what he was asking of his armed forces.
After eight years of cavalier isolationism and "staying the course," Obama's mature pragmatism was welcome. Now, about the details ...
As he announced the troop increase, President Obama said that he wanted to begin troop withdrawals by July 2011. While the timetable for ending the war is welcome (if for no other reason than it would theoretically prevent military commanders from repeatedly asking for more troops and resources to keep the conflict going with no end in sight), it is neither set in stone nor is it without its own set of heavy-handed questions:
Do we begin leaving in July 2011, even if we haven't done what we set out to do?
What constitutes victory in this war?
Why announce a timetable for withdrawal in the same breath that you're telling the country you're adding troops?
President Obama was consistent throughout the campaign in saying Afghanistan was where our military focus should be; while he believed Iraq was no longer in America's best interest, and promised to bring that conflict to an end, the president claimed Afghanistan was the "right war" and the "war of necessity."
Remember why we went to Afghanistan in the first place; in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, we went in to bring down al Qaeda, break up the Taliban and apprehend -- or kill -- Osama bin Laden. Initially, the offensive was a success ... but as a recent Senate report reveals, the previous administration had bin Laden in its sights, only to let him flee, presumably into Pakistan.
According to the report, bin Laden was stationed in Tora Bora, and American military forces were ready to pounce on him before former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and ground commander Tommy Franks intervened.
Some might view that as the Bush administration making a strategic move to justify a coming war in Iraq. The thinking goes that the administration knew capturing or killing bin Laden -- the entire point of the Afghan campaign -- would make military action in Iraq largely unjustifiable. There are those who believe Rumsfeld, Franks and even former Vice President Dick Cheney willingly let bin Laden escape into Pakistan so they could justify invading Iraq.
As some expected then, going to war in Iraq left Afghanistan without much in the way of focus and resources. I won't say whether the Bush administration knowingly did this -- though it wouldn't surprise me -- but the Iraq offensive is a large reason why Afghanistan is the mess it is now ... and why President Obama was faced with making a difficult and very unpopular decision.
Other questions beg asking:
At what point do we determine that Afghanistan is ready to take over on its own, both in a political and military sense? Part of our strategy is to train Afghan soldiers so they can handle the Taliban and other extremists, which is all well and good ... but when do we decide that they're ready?
How do we handle the Afghan government, which faces serious legitimacy questions and just came off a presidential election marred by fraud and corruption? President Harmid Karzai could prove to be a huge stumbling block in America's effort to strengthen Afghanistan outside of military occupation, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will have her hands full trying to walk the tight rope of supporting Karzai's administration while making it clear that America will not tolerate corruption and greed.
What about Pakistan? Intelligence suggests that bin Laden and top al Qaeda officials are hiding out on the other side of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, which on the surface makes the decision to escalate in Afghanistan a head-scratcher. Vice President Joe Biden has intimated as such, and America's relations with Pakistan -- combined with the fact that Pakistan is home to several nuclear weapons -- make a military presence in that country untenable.
Still ... if bin Laden is in Pakistan (allegedly), how can we get him in Afghanistan?
I don't doubt that President Obama took this decision seriously, understanding none of the options given to him were particularly appetizing. He has faced criticism from the right for taking so long to make his decision and announcing a timetable for withdrawal, while the left is against the troop increase and threatening not to allow funding for the increase to pass.
Still, even as pragmatic and adult as the president sounded on Tuesday, his reasoning isn't all that different from President George W. Bush's when he argued in favor of a troop surge in Iraq in 2007. Rachel Maddow also pointed out after the speech on Tuesday that President Obama wasn't deviating all that much from the "Bush Doctrine," which President Bush outlined in a speech at West Point in 2002.
Watch below:
When it comes to war, I'm not much of a liberal -- even though I opposed the war in Iraq from day one (last I checked, the people who knocked down our buildings and killed almost 3,000 people in 2001 weren't in Iraq). I believe the war in Afghanistan, at first, was a necessary war designed to keep us safe and get back at those who attacked us.
But as time passes, I find the war in Afghanistan far less appealing. Our strategy and focus has eroded beyond recognition over the past eight years, and while I appreciate that President Obama has presented an actual strategy -- and respect him for informing future troops in-person of the job he would ask them to perform -- I'm worried that it won't help much at this point.
Has Afghanistan become such a quagmire that any strategy aside from pulling out will be doomed to fail?
How do we pay for this escalation, even as we fight a recession and try to bring about sweeping changes to such aspects of domestic policy as health care, climate change and Wall Street? People talk of nation-building in Afghanistan, but isn't President Obama's first responsibility to help rebuild this country?
If we do capture or kill bin Laden or his top commanders, is that the end of it? The organization that attacked us eight years ago is not isolated to Afghanistan and Pakistan -- the 9/11 plot was hatched in Germany, and I'm sure al Qaeda has cells and operatives all over the world. I want us to bring down bin Laden, but we shouldn't be so naive as to think that'll be the end of our "war on terror."
We won't be able to bring out the "Mission Accomplished" banner, even if this strategy works. I trust that President Obama and his advisers have access to information with regards to this war to which we, as the general public, are not privy, but a troop escalation -- from a strategic and financial standpoint -- is a risky move at best at this point.
President Obama's legacy and chances for a second term could very well hinge on this decision. I hope this strategy proves successful, that we can capture or kill bin Laden and that our troops can finally come home safe and sound -- and I'll be honest in admitting that I don't understand much of what's going on in this war. But the questions outlined above are too heavy for me to ignore.
President Obama campaigned on focusing more on Afghanistan, which was what we apparently wanted as a nation at the time. But public opinion has shifted the longer this messy conflict goes on, and now focusing on Afghanistan doesn't seem like such a sure bet.
I'm not for the new strategy, but I'm not completely against it; I'm just a concerned American with serious questions about the outcome and cost -- financial and human -- of this war.
How many of the young cadets sitting in that audience were going to die as a result of this decision?
I don't ask that question to be glib or cute or sarcastic; I realize that war, justified or otherwise, always has a price, and I understand that those who choose to serve in the military during wartime understand that sacrifice and what might ultimately happen; that's one of the things that makes their service -- and the decision of the cadets in that room Tuesday night -- so admirable. We may disagree about the necessity of war or the correct strategy, but I think we can all agree that the men and women we send to fight these wars are a fine example of this country's strength and grace, and they are far greater Americans than I will ever be.
As expected, President Obama announced on Tuesday that he would send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan over the next six months, while also hoping for additional resources from some of his NATO allies.
NATO allies have, to this point, not wholeheartedly embraced the move.
This country has been at war in Afghanistan since 2001, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, and what was once a justified offensive aimed at bringing down a terroristic mastermind has become a qaugmire that seems to have no pleasant way out.
When most presidents make the case for war, they are bombastic, waving the American flag to rally the masses behind the cause without really diving into the all too stark realities of military combat. President Obama did not give such a speech on Tuesday; he was realistic, frank and acted as if he truly understood what he was asking of his armed forces.
After eight years of cavalier isolationism and "staying the course," Obama's mature pragmatism was welcome. Now, about the details ...
As he announced the troop increase, President Obama said that he wanted to begin troop withdrawals by July 2011. While the timetable for ending the war is welcome (if for no other reason than it would theoretically prevent military commanders from repeatedly asking for more troops and resources to keep the conflict going with no end in sight), it is neither set in stone nor is it without its own set of heavy-handed questions:
Do we begin leaving in July 2011, even if we haven't done what we set out to do?
What constitutes victory in this war?
Why announce a timetable for withdrawal in the same breath that you're telling the country you're adding troops?
President Obama was consistent throughout the campaign in saying Afghanistan was where our military focus should be; while he believed Iraq was no longer in America's best interest, and promised to bring that conflict to an end, the president claimed Afghanistan was the "right war" and the "war of necessity."
Remember why we went to Afghanistan in the first place; in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, we went in to bring down al Qaeda, break up the Taliban and apprehend -- or kill -- Osama bin Laden. Initially, the offensive was a success ... but as a recent Senate report reveals, the previous administration had bin Laden in its sights, only to let him flee, presumably into Pakistan.
According to the report, bin Laden was stationed in Tora Bora, and American military forces were ready to pounce on him before former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and ground commander Tommy Franks intervened.
Some might view that as the Bush administration making a strategic move to justify a coming war in Iraq. The thinking goes that the administration knew capturing or killing bin Laden -- the entire point of the Afghan campaign -- would make military action in Iraq largely unjustifiable. There are those who believe Rumsfeld, Franks and even former Vice President Dick Cheney willingly let bin Laden escape into Pakistan so they could justify invading Iraq.
As some expected then, going to war in Iraq left Afghanistan without much in the way of focus and resources. I won't say whether the Bush administration knowingly did this -- though it wouldn't surprise me -- but the Iraq offensive is a large reason why Afghanistan is the mess it is now ... and why President Obama was faced with making a difficult and very unpopular decision.
Other questions beg asking:
At what point do we determine that Afghanistan is ready to take over on its own, both in a political and military sense? Part of our strategy is to train Afghan soldiers so they can handle the Taliban and other extremists, which is all well and good ... but when do we decide that they're ready?
How do we handle the Afghan government, which faces serious legitimacy questions and just came off a presidential election marred by fraud and corruption? President Harmid Karzai could prove to be a huge stumbling block in America's effort to strengthen Afghanistan outside of military occupation, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will have her hands full trying to walk the tight rope of supporting Karzai's administration while making it clear that America will not tolerate corruption and greed.
What about Pakistan? Intelligence suggests that bin Laden and top al Qaeda officials are hiding out on the other side of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, which on the surface makes the decision to escalate in Afghanistan a head-scratcher. Vice President Joe Biden has intimated as such, and America's relations with Pakistan -- combined with the fact that Pakistan is home to several nuclear weapons -- make a military presence in that country untenable.
Still ... if bin Laden is in Pakistan (allegedly), how can we get him in Afghanistan?
I don't doubt that President Obama took this decision seriously, understanding none of the options given to him were particularly appetizing. He has faced criticism from the right for taking so long to make his decision and announcing a timetable for withdrawal, while the left is against the troop increase and threatening not to allow funding for the increase to pass.
Still, even as pragmatic and adult as the president sounded on Tuesday, his reasoning isn't all that different from President George W. Bush's when he argued in favor of a troop surge in Iraq in 2007. Rachel Maddow also pointed out after the speech on Tuesday that President Obama wasn't deviating all that much from the "Bush Doctrine," which President Bush outlined in a speech at West Point in 2002.
Watch below:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
When it comes to war, I'm not much of a liberal -- even though I opposed the war in Iraq from day one (last I checked, the people who knocked down our buildings and killed almost 3,000 people in 2001 weren't in Iraq). I believe the war in Afghanistan, at first, was a necessary war designed to keep us safe and get back at those who attacked us.
But as time passes, I find the war in Afghanistan far less appealing. Our strategy and focus has eroded beyond recognition over the past eight years, and while I appreciate that President Obama has presented an actual strategy -- and respect him for informing future troops in-person of the job he would ask them to perform -- I'm worried that it won't help much at this point.
Has Afghanistan become such a quagmire that any strategy aside from pulling out will be doomed to fail?
How do we pay for this escalation, even as we fight a recession and try to bring about sweeping changes to such aspects of domestic policy as health care, climate change and Wall Street? People talk of nation-building in Afghanistan, but isn't President Obama's first responsibility to help rebuild this country?
If we do capture or kill bin Laden or his top commanders, is that the end of it? The organization that attacked us eight years ago is not isolated to Afghanistan and Pakistan -- the 9/11 plot was hatched in Germany, and I'm sure al Qaeda has cells and operatives all over the world. I want us to bring down bin Laden, but we shouldn't be so naive as to think that'll be the end of our "war on terror."
We won't be able to bring out the "Mission Accomplished" banner, even if this strategy works. I trust that President Obama and his advisers have access to information with regards to this war to which we, as the general public, are not privy, but a troop escalation -- from a strategic and financial standpoint -- is a risky move at best at this point.
President Obama's legacy and chances for a second term could very well hinge on this decision. I hope this strategy proves successful, that we can capture or kill bin Laden and that our troops can finally come home safe and sound -- and I'll be honest in admitting that I don't understand much of what's going on in this war. But the questions outlined above are too heavy for me to ignore.
President Obama campaigned on focusing more on Afghanistan, which was what we apparently wanted as a nation at the time. But public opinion has shifted the longer this messy conflict goes on, and now focusing on Afghanistan doesn't seem like such a sure bet.
I'm not for the new strategy, but I'm not completely against it; I'm just a concerned American with serious questions about the outcome and cost -- financial and human -- of this war.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Dems Stay Home = GOP Win?
According to a survey released over the Thanksgiving holiday -- that received little media play -- roughly 40 percent of self-identified Democratic voters said they are "not likely to" or "definitely" won't vote in the 2010 Congressional elections.
That same poll found that self-identifying Republicans are three times more likely to vote in 2010. Next year's elections were already of interest, considering the Democrats' sizeable majority in both chambers of Congress and the reality that the President's party often loses seats in the first midterm election of his term.
So an already perilous situation for Democrats could get worse if much of their base stays home.
The news isn't necessarily surprising -- the Republican base has always been more passionate and active at the polls than the Democratic base -- but it does give those of us on the left cause for concern. Democrats need only look at what happened in the gubernatorial race earlier this month in Virginia; Democrats and independents stayed home, for a variety of reasons, while the GOP base mobilized and made Bob McDonnell the commonwealth's next governor.
If Democrats aren't careful -- or they fail to pass any significant legislation on any number of issues -- the Virginia governor's race could be a window through which we can speculate how the Congressional races might pan out.
Democrats stayed home in Virginia in part because they were unenthused with the party's candidate, Creigh Deeds. His unorganized campaign, combined with the fact that he shunned help from the White House until the very end and painted himself as a moderate, left the base wanting, while McDonnell energized the GOP base and even managed to paint himself as enough of a moderate to pick up a few independents.
Looking nationally, there are some lukewarm feelings toward Democrats in Congress -- either toward the Blue Dogs who are opposed to health care reform's most popular aspect or the Democratic leadership for failing to corrall the party together or the President's perceived inability to act on his campaign promises.
While the GOP looks no better, with its stance of opposing everything President Obama proposes simply because President Obama proposed them, the Republicans do a far better job of energizing their base -- even if that base is going through an identity crisis with the tea party protestors and the "conservative party" candidates.
That could mean seats in Congress turning red, and the very real possibility of the House and/or Senate turning red. And if you think President Obama's facing too many obstacles to pass his agenda now, just imagine how hard change will be if he has to face a Republican majority on either side of Congress.
What would it take to excite the Democratic base? In the words of Daily Kos blogger Steve Sinsiger, "Finish health care. Pass a jobs bill. Finish the climate bill. Re-regulate the financial industry. Finish the education bill. Pick up immgration reform. Repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'."
Seems simple enough; if Democrats actually pass bills relating to the agendas the American people supported in November 2008, they're more likely to vote to keep the party in power in 2010. But without anything concrete to point to in the name of progress, what is there for Democrats to show to their base to get them excited?
Democrats need to get things done to close the "enormous enthusiasm gap" between the parties, or the base will stay home -- effectively handing seats to the GOP. Democratic voters staying home will make the right's job in 2010 so much easier, because elections won't be so tight. That the Democrats will lose some seats isn't in dispute -- the Blue Dogs are facing anger from their own electorates, and there have been threats of Democratic primaries in some cases -- but the question remains:
If Democrats fall in 2010, do they fall to other Democrats, or to Republicans? If these poll numbers hold true, the country's going to turn red again this time next year. I don't know about the rest of you, but after the bulk of this decade, I can't handle that again.
If voters on the left stay home, and the GOP gets back in the majority, I don't want to hear progressives bitching about not having majority status in D.C. anymore. You don't vote, you lose your right to complain.
Simple as that.
That same poll found that self-identifying Republicans are three times more likely to vote in 2010. Next year's elections were already of interest, considering the Democrats' sizeable majority in both chambers of Congress and the reality that the President's party often loses seats in the first midterm election of his term.
So an already perilous situation for Democrats could get worse if much of their base stays home.
The news isn't necessarily surprising -- the Republican base has always been more passionate and active at the polls than the Democratic base -- but it does give those of us on the left cause for concern. Democrats need only look at what happened in the gubernatorial race earlier this month in Virginia; Democrats and independents stayed home, for a variety of reasons, while the GOP base mobilized and made Bob McDonnell the commonwealth's next governor.
If Democrats aren't careful -- or they fail to pass any significant legislation on any number of issues -- the Virginia governor's race could be a window through which we can speculate how the Congressional races might pan out.
Democrats stayed home in Virginia in part because they were unenthused with the party's candidate, Creigh Deeds. His unorganized campaign, combined with the fact that he shunned help from the White House until the very end and painted himself as a moderate, left the base wanting, while McDonnell energized the GOP base and even managed to paint himself as enough of a moderate to pick up a few independents.
Looking nationally, there are some lukewarm feelings toward Democrats in Congress -- either toward the Blue Dogs who are opposed to health care reform's most popular aspect or the Democratic leadership for failing to corrall the party together or the President's perceived inability to act on his campaign promises.
While the GOP looks no better, with its stance of opposing everything President Obama proposes simply because President Obama proposed them, the Republicans do a far better job of energizing their base -- even if that base is going through an identity crisis with the tea party protestors and the "conservative party" candidates.
That could mean seats in Congress turning red, and the very real possibility of the House and/or Senate turning red. And if you think President Obama's facing too many obstacles to pass his agenda now, just imagine how hard change will be if he has to face a Republican majority on either side of Congress.
What would it take to excite the Democratic base? In the words of Daily Kos blogger Steve Sinsiger, "Finish health care. Pass a jobs bill. Finish the climate bill. Re-regulate the financial industry. Finish the education bill. Pick up immgration reform. Repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'."
Seems simple enough; if Democrats actually pass bills relating to the agendas the American people supported in November 2008, they're more likely to vote to keep the party in power in 2010. But without anything concrete to point to in the name of progress, what is there for Democrats to show to their base to get them excited?
Democrats need to get things done to close the "enormous enthusiasm gap" between the parties, or the base will stay home -- effectively handing seats to the GOP. Democratic voters staying home will make the right's job in 2010 so much easier, because elections won't be so tight. That the Democrats will lose some seats isn't in dispute -- the Blue Dogs are facing anger from their own electorates, and there have been threats of Democratic primaries in some cases -- but the question remains:
If Democrats fall in 2010, do they fall to other Democrats, or to Republicans? If these poll numbers hold true, the country's going to turn red again this time next year. I don't know about the rest of you, but after the bulk of this decade, I can't handle that again.
If voters on the left stay home, and the GOP gets back in the majority, I don't want to hear progressives bitching about not having majority status in D.C. anymore. You don't vote, you lose your right to complain.
Simple as that.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Filibuster as Cancer
Though many might dismiss The Nation magazine as a lefty, liberal thinktank, it is often the home of some thought-provoking pieces. Case in point: an article in the Nov. 23, 2009 issue, in which staff writer Christopher Hayes pointed out the legislative quagmire that is the filibuster in the Senate, not to mention a wonderful example of hypocrisy from Connecticut's not-so-favorite independent, Joe Lieberman.
According to Hayes, the filibuster "has become a cancer growing inside the world's greatest deliberative body." The practice, by which one opposed to a legislative effort delays or kills said effort through endless discussion or debate. In order to prevent filibuster, the Senate needs 60 votes for what is called cloture; though Lieberman is an independent, he caucuses with the Democrats, giving that party 60 members in the Senate.
So for the Republican Party to filibuster, it would need one of those 60 other members to join the effort. Lieberman has threatened to join the GOP in filibustering a final vote on health care reform, and as Hayes notes, he's exposing his own hypocrisy in doing so.
In 1994, Lieberman and Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) introduced legislation to reform the filibuster. "[People] are fed up -- frustrated and fed up and angry about the way in which our government does not work," Lieberman said at the time. "And I think the filibuster has become not only in reality an obstacle to accomplishment here, but it is also a symbol of a lot that ails Washington today."
The bill came to a floor vote and was roundly killed by both parties.
So in the span of 15 years, Lieberman has gone from a vocal opponent of the filibuster to threatening to use it if health care reform inconveniences his insurance overlords back in Connecticut in any way. Lieberman is not threatening to filibuster debate on the health care bill in the Senate; he, along with conservative Democrats Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana voted on Saturday night for cloture.
What Lieberman has threatened is to filibuster a final vote, if the bill contains anything remotely resembling a public option. His reasoning? Lieberman feels so strongly against the public option, he can't even allow the Senate to vote on it. You ask me, Lieberman wouldn't make a stink this big if he honestly thought the public option wouldn't pass. He knows it will, so he wants to use an arcane Senate rule to prevent the vote from ever taking place.
The House of Representatives has no such rule. Once a bill comes out of committee in the House, it's presented to the floor and debated and amended. Then the bill comes up for a final vote, where it either passes or doesn't. The Constitution allows for such ease of passage in the House, while setting up more complicated barriers in the Senate, in order to provide a system of checks and balances in Washington.
Think of it as ... a good idea gone horribly bad.
There's a misconception among the mainstream media regarding the Democrats' 60-member majority in the Senate. To hear some in the media talk, the Democrats need 60 votes to pass the bill; they don't. A bill can pass the Senate by simple majority; a bill that gets 51 votes will pass just as easily as a bill that gets 60. Where the party needs the 60 votes is for cloture; they need the 60 to block the filibuster.
I understand why the filibuster is in place in the Senate, but I also realize that it's outlived its usefulness. Like the Commodore 64, the filibuster has passed its prime; it's obsolete. I agreed with Sen. Lieberman's assertion in 1994 that the filibuster was a needless roadblock in government's efforts to pass legislation.
Unfortunately, the Sen. Lieberman of 2009 has lost sight of his own convictions, and that might cost us true health care reform. If reform fails, it will not be the Republicans' fault; it will be Lieberman's, and the Democrats' for not effectively handling him and bowing to the demands of the more conservative members. If Lieberman is threatening to kill health reform, I say threaten to take away his committee chairmanship.
Then again, with all that money the insurance industry's been giving to Lieberman, I'm not sure he can see that. All he sees is green.
According to Hayes, the filibuster "has become a cancer growing inside the world's greatest deliberative body." The practice, by which one opposed to a legislative effort delays or kills said effort through endless discussion or debate. In order to prevent filibuster, the Senate needs 60 votes for what is called cloture; though Lieberman is an independent, he caucuses with the Democrats, giving that party 60 members in the Senate.
So for the Republican Party to filibuster, it would need one of those 60 other members to join the effort. Lieberman has threatened to join the GOP in filibustering a final vote on health care reform, and as Hayes notes, he's exposing his own hypocrisy in doing so.
In 1994, Lieberman and Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) introduced legislation to reform the filibuster. "[People] are fed up -- frustrated and fed up and angry about the way in which our government does not work," Lieberman said at the time. "And I think the filibuster has become not only in reality an obstacle to accomplishment here, but it is also a symbol of a lot that ails Washington today."
The bill came to a floor vote and was roundly killed by both parties.
So in the span of 15 years, Lieberman has gone from a vocal opponent of the filibuster to threatening to use it if health care reform inconveniences his insurance overlords back in Connecticut in any way. Lieberman is not threatening to filibuster debate on the health care bill in the Senate; he, along with conservative Democrats Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana voted on Saturday night for cloture.
What Lieberman has threatened is to filibuster a final vote, if the bill contains anything remotely resembling a public option. His reasoning? Lieberman feels so strongly against the public option, he can't even allow the Senate to vote on it. You ask me, Lieberman wouldn't make a stink this big if he honestly thought the public option wouldn't pass. He knows it will, so he wants to use an arcane Senate rule to prevent the vote from ever taking place.
The House of Representatives has no such rule. Once a bill comes out of committee in the House, it's presented to the floor and debated and amended. Then the bill comes up for a final vote, where it either passes or doesn't. The Constitution allows for such ease of passage in the House, while setting up more complicated barriers in the Senate, in order to provide a system of checks and balances in Washington.
Think of it as ... a good idea gone horribly bad.
There's a misconception among the mainstream media regarding the Democrats' 60-member majority in the Senate. To hear some in the media talk, the Democrats need 60 votes to pass the bill; they don't. A bill can pass the Senate by simple majority; a bill that gets 51 votes will pass just as easily as a bill that gets 60. Where the party needs the 60 votes is for cloture; they need the 60 to block the filibuster.
I understand why the filibuster is in place in the Senate, but I also realize that it's outlived its usefulness. Like the Commodore 64, the filibuster has passed its prime; it's obsolete. I agreed with Sen. Lieberman's assertion in 1994 that the filibuster was a needless roadblock in government's efforts to pass legislation.
Unfortunately, the Sen. Lieberman of 2009 has lost sight of his own convictions, and that might cost us true health care reform. If reform fails, it will not be the Republicans' fault; it will be Lieberman's, and the Democrats' for not effectively handling him and bowing to the demands of the more conservative members. If Lieberman is threatening to kill health reform, I say threaten to take away his committee chairmanship.
Then again, with all that money the insurance industry's been giving to Lieberman, I'm not sure he can see that. All he sees is green.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Maine = FAIL
It's one thing for a state to have always been against the concept of same-sex marriage; Virginia has never allowed homosexual couples to marry, even going so far as to add an amendment to the state constitution in 2006 defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.
It's another thing entirely when people vote to take away a state's legally-granted rights when it comes to same-sex marriage. We saw this last November when California voted in favor of Prop 8, which removed the state's right to grant same-sex marriages. Over the summer, Maine's legislature and governor passed a law making same-sex marriage legal -- which meant every state in New England outside of Rhode Island legalized same-sex marriage.
At least, until the same group that funded the Prop 8 campaign in California last year came to Maine looking to have a referendum put on this year's ballot asking voters to repeal the law. They had the signatures necessary to have the referendum put to a popular vote, and an intense, well-funded debate ensued.
Heading into Tuesday night, 30 states have put the issue of gay marriage up to a popular vote; all 30 times, the electorate voted against same-sex marriage. Many thought Maine, thanks to its independent electorate, might change that. But once the returns came in, it became clear that Maine would do the same as every other state, and deny homosexuals the right to marry.
Not just deny them the right -- taking away the right Maine's government had already granted its citizens. The Civil Rights movement in the 1960s was about giving African-Americans rights they didn't already have. In some ways, the fight for equal rights for homosexuals -- including marriage -- is about the same thing: giving homosexuals the same rights heterosexuals already enjoy.
But it's also about making sure the states that have granted homosexuals the right to marry don't turn around and take it away. Five states -- New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut and Iowa -- grant same-sex marriage rights, and to my knowledge, there are no efforts to remove those rights in those states. Which makes me wonder -- why take away the rights granted in California and Maine, but not in the other states?
Are California and Maine somehow more important?
Since Massachusetts instituted same-sex marriage in 2004, divorce rates have plummeted. Iowa voters have said, by a margin of 92 percent to eight, that same-sex marriages have had no effect on their lives. The numbers back up equal rights advocates in their claims that homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals and yet opponents, with their deep pockets and passionate supporters, have repeatedly succeeded in denying homosexuals those rights.
Equal rights advocates have experienced one win this year, when President Obama signed into law a defense appropriations bill that included an amendment extending hate crime protection on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or diability. There is a bill in the House of Representatives that would repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and the Senate will soon be holding hearings on the controversial law.
Even though the Department of Justice has defended the Defense of Marriage Act, President Obama has repeatedly declared that he would like to repeal the law. Inroads are being made in the civil rights battle of our generation, though even I will admit how frustrating it is to see how long this fight is taking -- and even more infuriating when I see progress snuffed out by a bigoted opposition taking advantage of an easily-scared electorate.
To deny anyone in this country equal rights on the basis of who they are or who they love is not only unseemly and unconstitutional, it's downright unpatriotic. How can you call yourself a proud American if you vote to deny your fellow citizens the same rights you enjoy? The men and women of our military shedding their own blood and giving their own lives for our freedoms are not doing so in order for us to arbitrarily decide who has access to those rights and who doesn't.
This is an example of the right-wing, Bible-thumping influence that has intoxicated our political discourse over the last decade (at least); bigots are using the Bible as a crutch to justify their senseless hatred, and someone needs to stand up and call them on it. It is unpatriotic and un-Christian to deny homosexuals the right to love as they see fit; hate and denial of rights flies in the face of everything this country stands for, and it makes me sick to know people still exist who let such hate permeate their minds.
How dare we deny other Americans basic equal rights. How dare we treat homosexuals as second-class Americans simply because of who they love. Have we learned nothing from the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s? Have we learned nothing from the efforts of people like Martin Luther King and Harvey Milk?
Why the hate? What is so goddamn horrible about a same-sex couple getting married?
If an 86-year old Republican in Maine, who fought in World War II, can find it in his heart to understand the importance of granting equal rights to ALL Americans, then what does that say about the selfish mouth-breathers who scream about the government interfering in their lives, while simultaneously asking the government to interfere in the lives of others?
Shame on you, California. Shame on you, Maine. And shame on every unpatriotic person who would dare deny a fellow American the right to marry. If defending equal rights for all makes me a bleeding-heart liberal, then I'm a damn liberal. I'll proudly wear that label.
I've had it with you hate-mongers. Have fun in Hell, where you belong.
It's another thing entirely when people vote to take away a state's legally-granted rights when it comes to same-sex marriage. We saw this last November when California voted in favor of Prop 8, which removed the state's right to grant same-sex marriages. Over the summer, Maine's legislature and governor passed a law making same-sex marriage legal -- which meant every state in New England outside of Rhode Island legalized same-sex marriage.
At least, until the same group that funded the Prop 8 campaign in California last year came to Maine looking to have a referendum put on this year's ballot asking voters to repeal the law. They had the signatures necessary to have the referendum put to a popular vote, and an intense, well-funded debate ensued.
Heading into Tuesday night, 30 states have put the issue of gay marriage up to a popular vote; all 30 times, the electorate voted against same-sex marriage. Many thought Maine, thanks to its independent electorate, might change that. But once the returns came in, it became clear that Maine would do the same as every other state, and deny homosexuals the right to marry.
Not just deny them the right -- taking away the right Maine's government had already granted its citizens. The Civil Rights movement in the 1960s was about giving African-Americans rights they didn't already have. In some ways, the fight for equal rights for homosexuals -- including marriage -- is about the same thing: giving homosexuals the same rights heterosexuals already enjoy.
But it's also about making sure the states that have granted homosexuals the right to marry don't turn around and take it away. Five states -- New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut and Iowa -- grant same-sex marriage rights, and to my knowledge, there are no efforts to remove those rights in those states. Which makes me wonder -- why take away the rights granted in California and Maine, but not in the other states?
Are California and Maine somehow more important?
Since Massachusetts instituted same-sex marriage in 2004, divorce rates have plummeted. Iowa voters have said, by a margin of 92 percent to eight, that same-sex marriages have had no effect on their lives. The numbers back up equal rights advocates in their claims that homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals and yet opponents, with their deep pockets and passionate supporters, have repeatedly succeeded in denying homosexuals those rights.
Equal rights advocates have experienced one win this year, when President Obama signed into law a defense appropriations bill that included an amendment extending hate crime protection on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or diability. There is a bill in the House of Representatives that would repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and the Senate will soon be holding hearings on the controversial law.
Even though the Department of Justice has defended the Defense of Marriage Act, President Obama has repeatedly declared that he would like to repeal the law. Inroads are being made in the civil rights battle of our generation, though even I will admit how frustrating it is to see how long this fight is taking -- and even more infuriating when I see progress snuffed out by a bigoted opposition taking advantage of an easily-scared electorate.
To deny anyone in this country equal rights on the basis of who they are or who they love is not only unseemly and unconstitutional, it's downright unpatriotic. How can you call yourself a proud American if you vote to deny your fellow citizens the same rights you enjoy? The men and women of our military shedding their own blood and giving their own lives for our freedoms are not doing so in order for us to arbitrarily decide who has access to those rights and who doesn't.
This is an example of the right-wing, Bible-thumping influence that has intoxicated our political discourse over the last decade (at least); bigots are using the Bible as a crutch to justify their senseless hatred, and someone needs to stand up and call them on it. It is unpatriotic and un-Christian to deny homosexuals the right to love as they see fit; hate and denial of rights flies in the face of everything this country stands for, and it makes me sick to know people still exist who let such hate permeate their minds.
How dare we deny other Americans basic equal rights. How dare we treat homosexuals as second-class Americans simply because of who they love. Have we learned nothing from the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s? Have we learned nothing from the efforts of people like Martin Luther King and Harvey Milk?
Why the hate? What is so goddamn horrible about a same-sex couple getting married?
If an 86-year old Republican in Maine, who fought in World War II, can find it in his heart to understand the importance of granting equal rights to ALL Americans, then what does that say about the selfish mouth-breathers who scream about the government interfering in their lives, while simultaneously asking the government to interfere in the lives of others?
Shame on you, California. Shame on you, Maine. And shame on every unpatriotic person who would dare deny a fellow American the right to marry. If defending equal rights for all makes me a bleeding-heart liberal, then I'm a damn liberal. I'll proudly wear that label.
I've had it with you hate-mongers. Have fun in Hell, where you belong.
GOP to Moderates: Thanks, But No Thanks
How do you elect a Democrat to a Congressional seat for the first since before the Civil War? Well, a GOP civil war of sorta helps a lot.
Democrat Bill Owens won the special election in New York's 23rd Congressional district Tuesday night, marking the first time since 1858 that a Democrat has taken that seat. But Owens didn't defeat a Republican to win the seat -- he beat Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.
Now, I know what you're thinking ... what's the difference between the Republican and Conservative parties? Apparently, the Republican isn't conservative enough.
Hoffman, who doesn't even live in NY-23 and has been criticized for not knowing about the local issues that matter to voters in upstate New York. But that didn't seem to matter to such conservative voices as Sarah Palin, Fred Thompson and Glenn Beck -- who all endorsed Hoffman over local Republican candidate Dierdre Scozzafava.
Translation: Scozzafava, a moderate, was too liberal for the GOP, so the bulk of the party's public voices backed the Conservative Party candidate, who was eerily close in ideology to the tea party movement that has been so prevalent and mocked since April.
In short, this turned into a civil war within the conservative movement. It's not entirely surprising -- political parties usually go through periods of unrest and identity confusion after rough election losses -- but the outcome is perhaps of national interest. With only 20 percent of the country willingly identifying as Republican, the tea party movement's efforts to neutralize a moderate Republican -- and essentially handing what was a "safe" GOP seat to the Democrats -- should serve as a lesson for the GOP.
The message? Moderates are not welcome in the GOP -- which Scozzafava proved when she dropped out of the race on Saturday and endorsed Owens. There was speculation about this theme during the presidential election last year -- when John McCain selected far right-wing Palin as his running mate, while Barack Obama managed to get the Democratic base, on top of independents and even some moderate Republicans.
Though Republicans fared well Tuesday in Virginia and New Jersey, the NY-23 race is probably more telling for the party. Chris Christie won in New Jersey largely because incumbent Jon Corzine was wildly unpopular, while Bob McDonnell took Virginia easily because of his stellar, focused campaign.
But NY-23 could loom large as we approach the 2010 midterms, mostly because of the fracturing within the GOP. Some pundits are drawing comparisons to 1994, when Republicans regained control of Congress with Bill Clinton in the White House, but I don't remember such schizophrenia within the party back then. How does the GOP keep its base energized, while still reaching out to moderates and independents?
I'm not so sure it can. And after the drama unfolding in NY-23, I'm not even sure the GOP wants to. The Republican Party has become so ideologically-driven that it no longer represents a significant portion of the American population. McDonnell was able to win in Virginia in part because he successfully painted himself as a moderate -- even if his past showed him to be anything but.
I'm not saying Democrats won't lose seats in 2010 -- particularly in health care reform is weak or fails. But if the GOP can't get its act together and find a way to have its cake and eat it too (i.e., appeal to the base and independents), it won't win back the number of seats it expects. The Republican Party has become so divisive that it's started to turn on its own, and if the Democrats are smart (which is certainly in question), they can take advantage of it.
But one thing NY-23 has taught us ... watching the GOP tear itself apart is pretty entertaining.
Democrat Bill Owens won the special election in New York's 23rd Congressional district Tuesday night, marking the first time since 1858 that a Democrat has taken that seat. But Owens didn't defeat a Republican to win the seat -- he beat Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.
Now, I know what you're thinking ... what's the difference between the Republican and Conservative parties? Apparently, the Republican isn't conservative enough.
Hoffman, who doesn't even live in NY-23 and has been criticized for not knowing about the local issues that matter to voters in upstate New York. But that didn't seem to matter to such conservative voices as Sarah Palin, Fred Thompson and Glenn Beck -- who all endorsed Hoffman over local Republican candidate Dierdre Scozzafava.
Translation: Scozzafava, a moderate, was too liberal for the GOP, so the bulk of the party's public voices backed the Conservative Party candidate, who was eerily close in ideology to the tea party movement that has been so prevalent and mocked since April.
In short, this turned into a civil war within the conservative movement. It's not entirely surprising -- political parties usually go through periods of unrest and identity confusion after rough election losses -- but the outcome is perhaps of national interest. With only 20 percent of the country willingly identifying as Republican, the tea party movement's efforts to neutralize a moderate Republican -- and essentially handing what was a "safe" GOP seat to the Democrats -- should serve as a lesson for the GOP.
The message? Moderates are not welcome in the GOP -- which Scozzafava proved when she dropped out of the race on Saturday and endorsed Owens. There was speculation about this theme during the presidential election last year -- when John McCain selected far right-wing Palin as his running mate, while Barack Obama managed to get the Democratic base, on top of independents and even some moderate Republicans.
Though Republicans fared well Tuesday in Virginia and New Jersey, the NY-23 race is probably more telling for the party. Chris Christie won in New Jersey largely because incumbent Jon Corzine was wildly unpopular, while Bob McDonnell took Virginia easily because of his stellar, focused campaign.
But NY-23 could loom large as we approach the 2010 midterms, mostly because of the fracturing within the GOP. Some pundits are drawing comparisons to 1994, when Republicans regained control of Congress with Bill Clinton in the White House, but I don't remember such schizophrenia within the party back then. How does the GOP keep its base energized, while still reaching out to moderates and independents?
I'm not so sure it can. And after the drama unfolding in NY-23, I'm not even sure the GOP wants to. The Republican Party has become so ideologically-driven that it no longer represents a significant portion of the American population. McDonnell was able to win in Virginia in part because he successfully painted himself as a moderate -- even if his past showed him to be anything but.
I'm not saying Democrats won't lose seats in 2010 -- particularly in health care reform is weak or fails. But if the GOP can't get its act together and find a way to have its cake and eat it too (i.e., appeal to the base and independents), it won't win back the number of seats it expects. The Republican Party has become so divisive that it's started to turn on its own, and if the Democrats are smart (which is certainly in question), they can take advantage of it.
But one thing NY-23 has taught us ... watching the GOP tear itself apart is pretty entertaining.
What Happened in Virginia?
How could a state that one year ago sent two Democrats to the Senate, gave Democrats a 6-5 edge in House Representatives and voted Democrat for President for the first time since the 1960s overwhelmingly vote for a Republican for governor Tuesday night? How could Bob McDonnell stem the tide of blue that had overtaken the commonwealth of Virginia over the last couple years?
Well, there's the curious pattern of Virginia voting for the party not in the White House. When Bill Clinton was in office, the governor of Virginia was a Republican. When George W. Bush was president, Virginia puts Democrats in Richmond.
But there's something deeper -- well, several things. I can't speak much on the New Jersey governor's race, since I don't live there -- from what I hear, incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine was really unpopular -- but in Virginia, McDonnell's beatdown is pretty easy to explain.
Consider:
No matter what happened, McDonnell's campaign was incredibly focused and stayed on-message. McDonnell tapped himself as "the jobs governor" early on, which was a politically-genius move. The label not only defined McDonnell's platform, but it was also easy to remember and kind of catchy -- it made for great posters and signs.
McDonnell's ads were also largely positive, focusing on his desire to gets Virginians back to work and how he would work to keep us safe. Even when Deomcrat candidate Creigh Deeds and the Washington Post got hold of a thesis McDonnell wrote in the 1980s while attending Regent University, in which the Republican complained about working women as well as "cohabitators, homosexuals and fornicators," McDonnell stayed on-message, choosing to fight off the charges by highlighting his daughter serving in Iraq and all the women who worked for McDonnell throughout his political career in Virginia.
In short, McDonnell ran a spot-on campaign.
By contrast, Deeds ran a sloppy, unorganized campaign. He never truly embraced one issue to run on -- his campaign was largely based on vagueries and the promise to continue former Gov. Mark Warner's economic policies (and inexplicably comparing McDonnell to Bush). While McDonnell was "the jobs governor," Deeds never adequately defined himself.
Deeds was also too quick to shun help from the White House, even though President Obama still had good approval numbers in Virginia. Fearing the state's independents were losing faith in the president, Deeds decided he didn't need the White House's help -- until last week, when Obama came to Norfolk to campaign for Deeds. By then, it was too late and the move smacked of desperation.
Simultaneously, Deeds went to the center; after the primaries, Deeds was to the left, but as the general campaign unfolded, he moved to the center -- claiming that becoming a moderate would help him with independents. The only thing it did, though, was upset the base (which I'll get to in a moment). Also not helping Deeds' cause? The fact that he insinuated he'd opt out of the public option that's currently being discussed in the Senate health care reform bill.
Deeds' ads were also far more negative than McDonnell's, especially when the GOP candidate's graduate thesis became public knowledge. Deeds focused intensely on the thesis, too much so. It became clear early on voters didn't care about the thesis -- either because they felt McDonnell's job proposals were more important, or they agreed with what was in the thesis.
The truth is probably a combination of both. But even when it was clear the attacks on McDonnell based on his right-wing thesis weren't working, Deeds kept hammering home the point, instead of focusing on what he would do for the state should he be elected. That further alienated independents and frustrated Democrats.
Off-year elections traditionally don't have the turnout of a presidential race, and the governor's race is no different. With the influx of new, young voters last year -- who overwhelmingly voted for Obama -- there was always the chance that those same voters would stay home when it came time to elect a governor or members of Congress.
It's been my experience that when college-age people register to vote for the first time, a lot of them think President is the only thing worth voting for. Sure, they'll vote for Senators and Congressmen if they're on the ballot that year, but off-year elections are not the territory for the young and minority voters.
The GOP knows this, and does a great job of mobilizing and exciting its base. In McDonnell's case, he managed to excite the base and grab the independents -- mostly by making himself appear moderate. Saying no to Sarah Palin had a lot to do with that, I think, as did McDonnell's insistence that his graduate thesis was over 20 years old, and that his views had changed since then.
Maybe they have, maybe they haven't.
I don't think Tuesday's results are a referendum on President Obama (see my point earlier about Virginia going against the party in the White House); I see it more as a race where McDonnell saw the issues that mattered to Virginians and hammered those home, while Deeds was unfocused and grasping at straws from day one.
Virginians care about jobs and the economy, and despite the ideological differences between McDonnell and myself (I still voted for Deeds, even with everything I just laid out), the fact remains that he did a really good job of talking about what mattered to the voters, and they turned out in droves to give him a massive win.
What will that mean for Virginia in the next four years? It's hard to tell, but if the Democrats want to make the commonwealth blue again -- it's only slightly blue at the moment -- then it needs to see what went wrong with the Deeds campaign and what McDonnell did right. The governor's race in Virginia was a combination of McDonnell's strengths, Deeds' weaknesses and a general apathy among the commonwealth's newfound electorate.
Combine those three things, and you get the 59-41 split we saw Tuesday night. The GOP will make more of it than it really is -- RNC chairman Michael Steele already has -- but unlike most things in politics, McDonnell's victory can be viewed inside a vacuum.
Well, there's the curious pattern of Virginia voting for the party not in the White House. When Bill Clinton was in office, the governor of Virginia was a Republican. When George W. Bush was president, Virginia puts Democrats in Richmond.
But there's something deeper -- well, several things. I can't speak much on the New Jersey governor's race, since I don't live there -- from what I hear, incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine was really unpopular -- but in Virginia, McDonnell's beatdown is pretty easy to explain.
Consider:
No matter what happened, McDonnell's campaign was incredibly focused and stayed on-message. McDonnell tapped himself as "the jobs governor" early on, which was a politically-genius move. The label not only defined McDonnell's platform, but it was also easy to remember and kind of catchy -- it made for great posters and signs.
McDonnell's ads were also largely positive, focusing on his desire to gets Virginians back to work and how he would work to keep us safe. Even when Deomcrat candidate Creigh Deeds and the Washington Post got hold of a thesis McDonnell wrote in the 1980s while attending Regent University, in which the Republican complained about working women as well as "cohabitators, homosexuals and fornicators," McDonnell stayed on-message, choosing to fight off the charges by highlighting his daughter serving in Iraq and all the women who worked for McDonnell throughout his political career in Virginia.
In short, McDonnell ran a spot-on campaign.
By contrast, Deeds ran a sloppy, unorganized campaign. He never truly embraced one issue to run on -- his campaign was largely based on vagueries and the promise to continue former Gov. Mark Warner's economic policies (and inexplicably comparing McDonnell to Bush). While McDonnell was "the jobs governor," Deeds never adequately defined himself.
Deeds was also too quick to shun help from the White House, even though President Obama still had good approval numbers in Virginia. Fearing the state's independents were losing faith in the president, Deeds decided he didn't need the White House's help -- until last week, when Obama came to Norfolk to campaign for Deeds. By then, it was too late and the move smacked of desperation.
Simultaneously, Deeds went to the center; after the primaries, Deeds was to the left, but as the general campaign unfolded, he moved to the center -- claiming that becoming a moderate would help him with independents. The only thing it did, though, was upset the base (which I'll get to in a moment). Also not helping Deeds' cause? The fact that he insinuated he'd opt out of the public option that's currently being discussed in the Senate health care reform bill.
Deeds' ads were also far more negative than McDonnell's, especially when the GOP candidate's graduate thesis became public knowledge. Deeds focused intensely on the thesis, too much so. It became clear early on voters didn't care about the thesis -- either because they felt McDonnell's job proposals were more important, or they agreed with what was in the thesis.
The truth is probably a combination of both. But even when it was clear the attacks on McDonnell based on his right-wing thesis weren't working, Deeds kept hammering home the point, instead of focusing on what he would do for the state should he be elected. That further alienated independents and frustrated Democrats.
Off-year elections traditionally don't have the turnout of a presidential race, and the governor's race is no different. With the influx of new, young voters last year -- who overwhelmingly voted for Obama -- there was always the chance that those same voters would stay home when it came time to elect a governor or members of Congress.
It's been my experience that when college-age people register to vote for the first time, a lot of them think President is the only thing worth voting for. Sure, they'll vote for Senators and Congressmen if they're on the ballot that year, but off-year elections are not the territory for the young and minority voters.
The GOP knows this, and does a great job of mobilizing and exciting its base. In McDonnell's case, he managed to excite the base and grab the independents -- mostly by making himself appear moderate. Saying no to Sarah Palin had a lot to do with that, I think, as did McDonnell's insistence that his graduate thesis was over 20 years old, and that his views had changed since then.
Maybe they have, maybe they haven't.
I don't think Tuesday's results are a referendum on President Obama (see my point earlier about Virginia going against the party in the White House); I see it more as a race where McDonnell saw the issues that mattered to Virginians and hammered those home, while Deeds was unfocused and grasping at straws from day one.
Virginians care about jobs and the economy, and despite the ideological differences between McDonnell and myself (I still voted for Deeds, even with everything I just laid out), the fact remains that he did a really good job of talking about what mattered to the voters, and they turned out in droves to give him a massive win.
What will that mean for Virginia in the next four years? It's hard to tell, but if the Democrats want to make the commonwealth blue again -- it's only slightly blue at the moment -- then it needs to see what went wrong with the Deeds campaign and what McDonnell did right. The governor's race in Virginia was a combination of McDonnell's strengths, Deeds' weaknesses and a general apathy among the commonwealth's newfound electorate.
Combine those three things, and you get the 59-41 split we saw Tuesday night. The GOP will make more of it than it really is -- RNC chairman Michael Steele already has -- but unlike most things in politics, McDonnell's victory can be viewed inside a vacuum.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)