COMMENTARY
(SPY has accrued a pile of reference material and notes, contemplating Election 2006, but held off publishing so that no reader could assume SPY was trying to influence their vote on any issue)
THE BATTLE OF THE POTOMAC
Election 2006 was an important round but the Battle of the Potomac continues.
Indeed, the long-term effect of 2006 may well be how it influences the Presidential election of 2008 – and, people, that’s what pumped campaign spending to such high levels in the 2006 contests..
One prospective skirmish was avoided when the Democrats also gained control of the Senate, always more a hotbed of presidential politics than the House. Senators would not want Speaker-to-be Pelosi, who in the past has been more liberal than her party, being the most dominant voice shaping the agendas on which 2008 will be fought. Hillary Clinton and Obama will demand a say. Two other Senators hit the 2008 skids, Kerry and Allen, but Joe Biden has always fancied 1600 Pennsylvania and he will now chair Foreign Relations. Russ Feingold and Evan Bayh also hear Hail to the Chief in their dreams. John McCain would have assumed the chair of Armed Services, pivotal given his position on Iraq; now, Carl Levin will take that chair and he wants to set timetables for withdrawing from Iraq. So, Harry Reid, who should be the new Majority Leader, will have a major say in Democratic policy – on the Hill and nationally.
Much of the continuing battle is being fought behind the scenes. Neither Pelosi or Reid has guaranteed that ranking minority members will automatically become committee chairs, although both expect that to be the frequent case. But, who will replace Frist in the Senate and Hastert in the House to lead the GOP? No one will be surprised to see Trent Lott try to regain the Republican leadership in the Senate. How will the Democrats reward Schuster and Emmanuel who headed their Senate and House campaign committees? Judiciary is also key in the Senate; before Tuesday, the White House was anticipating Bush would get to name a third Supreme Court justice; he may, but any such nominee will now be more centrist because Patrick Leahy will chair Judiciary, and he has been reluctant to approve Bush’s choices in the past – and Leahy’s influence will be felt by nominees down through the federal judiciary..
While majority members clamor for chairmanships (and watch their backs), and the expanded staffs that go with these committees, not to mention prime office space, there is a somewhat more desperate scramble among Republican staffers. Those who worked for the 36 Republican members who lost are out of a job, just at a time when there will also be fewer GOP staff on committees.
Never under-estimate the influence of these staff.
Two groups of Washingtonians hedged their bets – the lawyers and lobbyists. The Post has daily reports of the comings-and-goings of lawyers, lobbyists, PR people, etc., and over the last month several shops which specialize in Republican contacts have brought on new associates with ties to Democrats.
HOW HISTORIC?
After all the headlines in the Post, Times etc., was Election 2006 really historic, even cataclysmic? True, the Democrats regained control of both houses of Congress after 12 years. But, as Pete Clemenza said to Michael, just before the younger Corleone killed Sollozzo and McCluskey, setting off a war between the Families: “These things have to happen once every ten years or so. It gets rid of the bad blood.” Indeed, a reading of the Federalist Papers confirms that the Founding Fathers thought frequent change to be in the public interest.
The Gingrich-led 1994 capture of the House was evolutionary, in that it led to a sea change in the direction of the House toward more conservative policies, and, while many of those efforts were moderated by the less conservative Senate and the liberal Clinton, the election did solidify the conservative base, and made inevitable that the next Republican Presidential candidate had to court the right, especially the Christian right – even though that President, George W Bush, did not pursue many of the policies held dear by that constituency, to their well-voiced dismay.
It is useful to examine several shifts in Congressional power and compare the heraldic proclamations of the winners with actual change. Given the diverse geographic interests, the equally diverse backgrounds of the Members who bring competing even conflicting interests into every debate, and the fact that all of these House members must start campaigning again in January because they face re-election in 2008, history will prevail – and history dictates that there is an inexorable pull to the middle in American politics.
Every projection by either party must consider that many of these new House Democrats are essentially moderates – and their views can be expected to reinforce that centrist pull.
The operative question is: did America lurch to the left, or revert to the center? Bet on centrist agendas prevailing.
THE VOTE
Republicans lost badly among independent voters, suburbanites, white Catholics, the middle class and Hispanics - groups it had courting successfully in recent years, exit polls found. A fourth of voters this year were independents, according to exit polls, and they voted heavily for Democratic candidates.
Independents backed Democrats by 57-39 -
after voting for the GOP by 48-45 in 2002.
Moderates backed Democrats by 60-38 - after voting Democratic 53-45 in 2002.
Suburbanites backed Democrats by 50-48 - after voting for the GOP 57-40 in 2002.
Exit polls show that the GOP lost Middle Class America.
THE ISSUES AND THE DEMOCRATS AGENDA
Long before Election Day, key Democrats offered what could be called an amalgamated agenda: increase the minimum wage; implement the recommendations of the 911 Commission; increase funding for stem cell research; tighten defense spending; and roll back some of the Bush tax cuts.
Voters were not asked to vote up or down on these and other issues. But, in poll after poll, voters said they wanted a change in Congressional leadership. And, the positions of several leading Democrats who will now become committee chairs are known. Charlie Rangel demurred before Tuesday when asked about taxes, but when he assumes the chair of Ways and Means, those Bush tax cuts will be in his gun sights. John Conyers has been unhappy with Justice for years, and he will chair the Judiciary committee. David Obey returns to the Appropriations chair, one of the more able men in Congress.
Pelosi, who would become the first female speaker in history, called for harmony and said Democrats would not abuse their new status. Even before her cordial meeting with President Bush, Pelosi declared that impeachment was off the table. But, getting even is as much a part of Washington as the Capitol steps; Gingrich et al not only laid the wood to Democrats, they impeached Clinton. Some Democrats issued calls for bipartisanship even as they vowed to investigate administration policies and decisions. Expect the national security roles of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Defense to come back under intense scrutiny, even the recent agreement with Bush on investigations, interrogations, warrantless spying, and defendants’ rights of habeas corpus.
Also expect Pelosi to run a tight ship; she campaigned hard for many of these new Members, and some threatened incumbents, and has a drawer full of chits.
IRAQ AND THE ELECTION
The Associated Press offered this summation:
Democrats insisted - and even Bush
conceded - that the election was about Iraq. The overwhelming sentiment voters
showed against the war will put tremendous pressure on Bush and GOP lawmakers to
change course in the conflict.
Polls of voters found a strong majority - about six in 10 - disapproved of the
war in Iraq. About a fourth of those polled said they sided with Democrats on
wanting to withdraw some troops from Iraq and another three in 10 said they want
all troops withdrawn.
Anger over the war prompted Republicans to lose critical swing voters.
Two-thirds of independent voters in the country said they disapproved of the
war, with almost half of them strongly disapproving.
Voters' disapproval of the war factored heavily into nearly every tightly
contested race, and many Democratic challengers won by identifying a specific
timetable on when troops should come home.
House Democrats say they plan to set up
a new committee next year focused on uncovering abuses in defense spending and
policies, and possibly an independent commission to investigate waste and fraud
associated with the billions of dollars spent to rebuild Iraq. Implementing
unfulfilled recommendations by the 9/11 commission - such as plugging holes in
airport security - is also on their agenda.
"It's going to be hearings, accountability, trying to restore trust so the
people understand what the real facts are," said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., the
Marine veteran who last year called for an immediate withdrawal of troops from
Iraq and helped crystallize congressional opposition to the war.
While majority Democrats will have the power to demand information from the
White House and control the federal purse strings, their constitutional ability
to control defense and foreign policy issues will be limited. The president
still commands the armed forces and oversees diplomatic dealings with other
nations.
Further, even though Democrats will control the Senate, they will do so only by
a narrow 51-49 margin. Democrats will lack the two-thirds majorities needed to
override presidential vetoes and enact bills the White House might oppose, and
the 60 votes needed to prevent Senate Republicans from filibustering
legislation.
They also might have to work to keep Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, the
longtime Democrat who won Tuesday as an independent after losing the Democratic
primary, on their side.
The AP summation is generally accurate. Certainly, Iraq was a factor in Chafee losing in Rhode Island, where his family was THE political dynasty, and in Santorum’s loss in Pennsylvania, and DeWine losing in Ohio. Allen lost a double-digit lead to Webb, mostly through self-inflicted wounds. But, many races also reflected the wisdom of the late Tip O’Neill: all politics is local. The war was not enough of a factor to push young Harold Ford into the Senate from Tennessee.
But, it will be Topic A when the new Congress convenes. And, in Washington, there is an acute awareness that, however much the Iraq issue helped the Democrats, the Democrats do not have a policy agreed on by the majority of their members in either house.
Democratic incumbents are divided on how
soon to pull troops out of Iraq, and the party risks being held responsible by
voters in the 2008 presidential elections if an abandoned Iraq collapses into a
full-blown civil war.
The White House says many Democratic critics agree that timetables are risky.
"What we're seeing is even those who are critical of the conduct or the
competence of the war in Iraq all understand the consequences ... That is, if we
are going to pull out of Iraq before the job is done it's going to make our
country less secure," one official said.
Given the many varied opinions among Democrats, and their slim majority in the Senate, any workable solution will require cooperation among members of both parties.
SOLUTIONS FOR IRAQ
Both parties eagerly await the recommendations of the commission chaired by James Baker and Lee Hamilton. Many experienced foreign policy experts are calling for partition, but Baker has opposed partition in remarks on the Sunday pre-election talk shows. But, Biden favors partition and he will set the agenda in Foreign Relations..
Dividing countries has not worked well historically, eg, Viet Nam and Korea. India and Pakistan waged civil war after the 1947 split and are still at each other’s throats.
But, Iraq is different. One, it never was a country; Winston Churchill led the effort to force the Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites into a political amalgam called Iraq. Two, for all practical purposes, partition has occurred. The Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds have virtual control over increasingly autonomous regions. Three, the civil war which Washington fears is a fact on the ground – and no measure which stops the carnage of the various insurgent and militia groups will succeed without the involvement of Saudia Arabia, Iran and Syria – an intervention the Bush Administration has resisted. To be sure, such intervention would probably not produce the kind of democracy we hail on the 4th of July – but we were never going to install that kind of democracy. The United States has to step back politically before it steps back militarily.
When WWII ended, and the Cold War was intensifying, the noted historian Henry Steele Commager wrote that are three options available: the US solution, the Soviet solution, and the indigenous solution a free people might choose for themselves, if left to their own devices. Since the First War, the Western powers have tried to rule or influence Iraq, directly and indirectly, with disastrous results.
There is one major piece to the equation that could be put on the table. Oil.
In Kelly’s Heroes, when efforts to seize a bank full of gold are blocked by a Tiger tank, Crap Game tells Big Joe it’s time to make a deal. What kind of deal? A deal deal! Let the Germans share the gold.
Oil doesn’t receive much mention in the dailies about Iraq, but the economic and business press have repeatedly noted this bone of contention among the three parties. The Shiites control the oil region; the Sunnis and Kurds want an equitable share.
Oil won’t dampen religious zeal – but it could buy peace. The Saudis could broker this deal. We may have to sit at table with some people we despise, but hell, we’re not marrying them. After all, more than 30 years ago, we were fleeing Saigon through the roof of the US embassy. Yesterday, Viet Nam’s progressive economy was hailed when it became a member of the World Trade Organization.
THE 800 LB GORILLA
Bush not only commanded a major share of the day-after press with the firing of Rumsfeld, he defused a major Democrat issue while they were still popping the corks. No way this decision happened election night, after the votes were counted. Bush had Gates waiting in the wings, and Rumsfeld was his hole card if the election went south.
At the same time, he reminded the Democrats there are three branches of government and he has sign-off privileges on all major issues. More, Bush will have Gates confirmed by the outgoing Republican Senate majority.
Not surprising, Bush made it easy for he and Pelosi to make nice over lunch.
Bush is not only free to make new moves on Iraq, sans Rumsfeld, he is no longer held in fief by the Christian right – after Tuesday’s elections. Now, Bush, like every President before him, can play for the history books.
Not a perfect system, but fascinating to watch. Stay tuned.
rfh