Politics, Government & Public Policy: November 2004 Archives

Joe Trippi -- Howard Dean's erstwhile campaign manager -- says the Democrats lost the recent election because they weren't left-wing enough:

Since the Democratic Leadership Council, with its mantra of "moderate, moderate, moderate," took hold in D.C., the party has been in decline at just about every level of government. Forget the Kerry loss. Today the number of Democrats in the House is the lowest it's been since 1948. Democrats are on the brink of becoming a permanent minority party. Can the oldest democratic institution on earth wake from its stupor? Here are some steps to pull out of the nose-dive:

Democrats can't keep ignoring their base. Running to the middle and then asking our base to make sure to vote isn't a plan. And to those who say talking to your base doesn't work--Read the Rove 2004 playbook!

On one hand, I'm glad to read this since if the Dems take his advice they're certain to continue to decline in influence. On the other hand, it would be nice -- in theory -- to have two viable political parties instead of just one.

At the end of the piece, he argues that the Democratic Party doesn't have a clear vision or hasn't articulated it to the American people:

Finally, what is the purpose the party strives for today? What are our goals for the nation? You couldn't tell from the election. Very few good ideas come from the middle, and they tend to be mediocre. Consultants have become adept at keeping candidates in that safe zone. But the time has come to develop bold ideas and challenge people to sacrifice for the common good. Experts will tell you that you can't ask the American people to sacrifice individually for the common good. Those experts are wrong--it's just been so long since anyone has asked them.

Few good ideas come from the middle? That sort of logic defies the foundational principle of our two-party system that encourages people on both sides to find common, mutually agreeable solutions. Would Mr. Trippi eliminate the various checks and balances built into our government so that whomever is in the majority can wield unobstructed power? I don't think that's a wise idea, despite my party's present control.

And go ahead, ask people to "sacrifice individually for the common good" -- as if the government is the only organization that works for the common good -- that worked great for Hillary. The fact of the matter is that millions of (mostly red-state) Americans give tons of money to benefit the public good via churches and charities... Democrats are just upset because the money doesn't filter through the government before being spent.

Mr. Trippi has a glowing reputation because of his aptitude for fundraising, but his political instincts seem to be lacking. I think he's mistaken in thinking that the Democrats need to be more extreme, but then that goes with the Howard-Dean-territory I suppose. Most Americans know what the Democrats are about: higher taxes, abortion on demand, girlie-man foreign policy, and government control of every aspect of life other than sex. We know your vision, and we don't like it, and we don't want it.

I want action figures of the Supreme Court justices, and I can't find them. I also want figures for various Bush Administration officials, but all I can find is W himself. Anyone have any info about such things?

Hm, I seem to remember another Civil War started by Democrats that didn't turn out too well for them, so I wonder why some leftists are so keen on the idea now? I mean, they're obviously going to be fighting against superior numbers -- at least 51 to 48, discounting Naderite pacifists -- and their opponents will be the ones with all the guns. Plus, y'know, the military favored President Bush 4 to 1, and they've got all sorts of nifty weapons.

Who does the left have? Well, Michael Moore, but zeppelins haven't been useful in war for decades. Maybe Whoopi will make crude jokes in our general direction? Maybe Margaret Cho will remove the UN-sealed bag from her head? I just don't think a battalion of solar-powered tanks with Al Gore at the head is going to be very effective. I guess the main thing we on the right should be worried about is that France and the UN will... uh...? Nevermind.

So to lefty secessionists I say: bring it on.

The nearly insufferable Arianna Huffington brutally scourges the so-called Clintonistas who took over the last two months of John Kerry's presidential campaign.

But shouldn’t it have been obvious that Iraq and the war on terror were the real story of this campaign? Only these Washington insiders, stuck in an anachronistic 1990s mind-set and re-fighting the ’92 election, could think that the economy would be the driving factor in a post-9/11 world with Iraq in flames. That the campaign’s leadership failed to recognize that it was no longer “the economy, stupid,” was the tragic flaw of the race.

In conversations with Kerry insiders over the last nine months, I’ve heard a recurring theme: that it was Shrum and the Clintonistas (including Greenberg, Carville and senior advisor Joe Lockhart) who dominated the campaign in the last two months and who were convinced that this election was going to be won on domestic issues, like jobs and healthcare, and not on national security.

As Tom Vallely, the Vietnam War veteran whom Kerry tapped to lead the response to the Swift boat attacks, told me: “I kept telling Shrum that before you walk through the economy door, you’re going to have to walk through the terrorism/Iraq door. But, unfortunately, the Clinton team, though technically skillful, could not see reality — they could only see their version of reality. And that was always about pivoting to domestic issues. As for Shrum, he would grab on to anyone’s strategy; he had none of his own.”

I'm glad she's not my governor, but she makes good points (except that she thinks Kerry should have played up national security by going hardcore anti-Iraq). It's almost as if the Clintonistas wanted Kerry to lose, but by as small a margin as possible.

Despite what David Broder and Glenn Reynolds think, I don't see the gerrymandering of House seats as a huge problem. Because of gerrymandering and the 17th Amendment, the House and Senate have essentially reversed roles, with Senate seats turning over more frequently than House seats because state lines can't be redrawn on a whim. So, fine; what's the big deal? Plus, House districts aren't drawn arbitrarily, they're the result of another democratic process, namely state legislatures (whose own districts are also, of course, gerrymandered).

All in all, I'd like to repeal the 17th Amendment and force state legislatures to draw concave House districts, but such things are not high on my list of political priorities. I think ending federal income tax witholding, or eliminating the income tax altogether, would go farther towards reforming and shrinking our government.

After reading this very public promise by Senator Specter to support President Bush's nominees, I'm entirely comfortable allowing him to take the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

To resolve any concern that I would block pro-life judicial nominees, take a look at my record. I have consistently opposed any litmus test. I have backed that up by voting to confirm pro-life nominees including Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justice Anthony Kennedy. I led the fight to confirm Justice Clarence Thomas, which almost cost me my Senate seat in 1992.

I have voted for all of President Bush's judicial nominees in committee and on the floor.

The current controversy was artificially created by incorrect reporting. I never "warned" the president on anything--and especially not that I'd block pro-life nominees.

Brian Wilson, a reporter for Fox News, said: "I looked at the tape very closely. . . . Senator Specter was the victim of some spin on the part of some reporters who took some comments and were looking for a kind of a good headline out of it."

Similarly, Rush Limbaugh refused to join the critics, saying: "This Specter story . . . may be a story about the media again . . . apparently, just from the looks of this, it may be that some words were put in his mouth that he didn't say."

The Rev. Pat Robertson has also seen through the media spin, stating on Nov. 8 that "I am not worried about Arlen Specter, and I think he'll be fine."

I'll call up Messrs. Bush and Frist right now to withdraw my objection.

Ok, Hugh Hewitt has mostly convinced me that I was over-eager in my desire to prevent Senator Arlen Specter from gaining the chairmanship of the Senate Judicial committee. Mr. Hewitt thinks such an upset would be a Phyrric victory at best, and would unnecessarily disrupt the confirmation process. He says that we should wait to see if Senator Specter actually does start obstructing nominees before we throw him to the wolves. Sigh... ok! But the wolves are so hungry. Maybe that's the point... Republicans shouldn't overplay their hand just because they've got some good hole cards.

Update:
The guys at Power Line agree.

Michael Gonzalez writes about Hispanic diversity in America and some of the demographic factors that led to nearly half of voting Hispanics deciding to support George Bush.

This was the election when Hispanics came of age. Two were famously elected into the Senate, providing a powerful symbol of their political advent. To Ken Salazar in Colorado, and to my fellow Cuban-American Mel Martinez in Florida, I send congratulations. But to my mind, much more important are the following numbers from pollsters: 72, 62 and 54. These are, respectively, the percentage of Hispanics that voted for Clinton in 1996, Gore in 2000 and Kerry last week. Two more figures, 50% and 40 million, are, respectively, the increase in Hispanic voters in 2004 over 2000, and the number of Hispanics now in the U.S., a country of 280 million.

Two more stats are really important (and then I'll stop). The first is that 22% of Hispanics told pollsters they were voting for the first time. Of these, the party split was even. This might be the most ominous number for Democrats, since party loyalties are cemented early.

To Democrats, the most perlexing part of Mr. Gonzalez' article may be the bio line at the very end:

Mr. González is editor of The Asian Wall Street Journal's editorial page.

A guy named Gonzalez is editing an Asian paper?

Anyone looking for a new purpose in life now that Tom Daschle has been defeated should consider getting engaged in the battle against Arlen Specter and his "entitlement" to the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He's a lefty Republican who has vowed, numerous times, to block conservative judicial nominees.

Jane Smiley pontificates on why Americans hate Democrats.

American politicians ALWAYS operate by a similar sort of flattery, and so Americans are never induced to question themselves. That's what happened to Jimmy Carter—he asked Americans to take responsibility for their profligate ways, and promptly lost to Ronald Reagan, who told them once again that they could do anything they wanted. The history of the last four years shows that red state types, above all, do not want to be told what to do—they prefer to be ignorant. As a result, they are virtually unteachable.

Yeah, that's called liberty. I can't imagine why Americans don't like you.

I've said before that I think Hillary Clinton is unelectable to the Presidency due to her high negatives, but as I considered it today I thought of one advantage she'll have over any other Democratic competitors in 2008. Hillary's base on the left is enormous and unassailable, which means that after primaries are over she can tack as hard to the right as necessary without endangering her core. Even if she has to say stuff like, "Yeah, universal health care in the 1990s was a crazy idea, and now I've learned my lesson" it won't matter. The left would support her no matter what... and she might be convincing enough to win middlers from the right.

On Tuesday, Democratic pollster Mark Mellman said that his model predicted a Bush win with 51.6% of the two-party vote. According to CNN, Bush actually received 51.5% -- good job, Mr. Mellman!

(HT: James Taranto for the Hill piece.)

Update:
Mr. Taranto also points to this hilarious headline:

Where's Bill Clinton When You Need Him?
"Little Girl Unable to Feel Pain"--headine, FoxNews.com, Nov. 2

Also, he points to a Blade article saying, "Perhaps the most surprising news for gay observers of the presidential election is that exit polls show President Bush received the exact same percentage of gay votes — 23 percent — as he did four years ago." Bush gets twice the support from gays as from blacks? How ironic; color me surprised.

Joe Trippi, Howard Dean's old campaign manager, has an insightful look into the Democrats' tremendous loss on Tuesday -- and according to his math, it's not the kids' fault.

In the 2000 presidential election, George Bush received just over 50 million votes. At this writing, in 2004, he has received just about 59 million votes— 9 million more votes than he received in 2000.

What is stunning about this number is the simple fact that in the 2000 election, 105 million Americans went to the polls, and at this writing, 114 million votes have been cast in 2004 for President— a 9 million vote increase.

Simple math: A turn out increase of 9 million voters has translated into a 9 million vote increase in the number of votes for President Bush.

And he concludes with what should be a sobering realization for the Democratic Party:

No if we really want to find out what went wrong yesterday, it is time once for all for the organized Democratic Party to stare into a mirror and point at itself.

I hope he doesn't just mean that the Party should examine its tactics, but rather than the Democrats need to really evaluate their unpopular positions.

Fresh off a huge electoral victory, Republican politicians are already struggling to stay unified. Well, some of the outliers are, anyway. Senator Arlen Specter is poised to take over the Senate Judiciary Committee and is threatening to impose his rather leftist philosophy on the President's nominees.

The Republican expected to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee next year bluntly warned newly re-elected President Bush today against putting forth Supreme Court nominees who would seek to overturn abortion rights or are otherwise too conservative to win confirmation.

Sen. Arlen Specter, fresh from winning a fifth term in Pennsylvania, also said the current Supreme Court now lacks legal "giants" on the bench.

"When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade, I think that is unlikely," Specter said, referring to the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.

"The president is well aware of what happened, when a bunch of his nominees were sent up, with the filibuster," Specter added, referring to Senate Democrats' success over the past four years in blocking the confirmation of many of Bush's conservative judicial picks. "... And I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning."

This is the kind of crap that made the Republican 51-49 Senate majority so weak last term. If the Senate leaders can't push Specter and Senators Snowe and Chafee into line, these next four years could be just as frustrating as the last four. At least the new 55-45 majority will greatly reduce the value of marginal Republicans.

Update 041104 5:00pm
I'm glad to see Senator Specter deny these accusations.

Many of my lefty friends are dismayed at the prospect of a Bush victory, but really, what's the worst that can happen? Does anyone want to make some dire predictions? What terrible changes will President Bush bring about over the next four years that warrant such disgust? I'd really like to hear some rational speculation.