A Silver Lining? It's hard to find one, looking at the election last night. All the bellwether Senate races, from New Hampshire to North Carolina and even Minnesota, swung decidedly in the GOP's direction. And the one seat the Democrats managed to pick up came to them solely because of an incumbent's marital infidelities. So the important question is, where do the Dems go from here?
Firstly, they need new leadership. Gephardt is already taking himself out of the minority leader's position, as he will attempt another feeble presidential run (no shot whatsoever). But Daschle needs to go too, as does the head of the DNC, Terry McAuliffe. They simply did not set an agenda that warranted anyone besides the most loyal party voter to choose the Democratics. This loss is not just an embarrassment because it occurred in the other party's presidential midterms, but because it showed the Democrats running without any ideas. The Republicans, in '94, had the Contract With America. This year, they had the "security" platform - "judicial security" by confirming federal judges, the homeland security department, "economic security" by making tax cuts permanent and unwavering support for war in Iraq. The Democrats resisted confirming even mildly conservative judges, warranted blame for the Homeland Security Department by getting hung up on union membership, stated a contradiction whereby the tax cuts were a bad idea but not worth repealing, and had a multitude of opinions on Iraq that were anything but unified.
It looks as if Nancy Pelosi or Mark Frost will be the new House Minority Leader. Either would do fine I guess, so long as they are a fresh face. In the Senate, I'd like to see Evan Bayh take the position, if possible, but if Daschle ever left, Harry Reid, the second in command, would likely warrant a lot of consideration. As for DNC Chair, which will almost certainly be vacated soon - it'd probably never happen, but Bill Clinton would be perfect for the job.
Next issue - the Democrats are all over TV and the newspapers today blaming the election results on the president's popularity. If they actually believe that, then the party is in worse shape than most think. Hopefully, in the meetings surely to take place over the next few days, when the bickering subsides a sober reality of having run a campaign without a platform will take the blame for this disaster. It was not the Republicans fault that the Dems lost - most Americans disagree with much of what they are proposing. And yet, by characterizing in retrospect the election as they have, the Dems have basically given the GOP a mandate for their agenda.
Finally, where does this leave us for 2004? On this front, all is not bad. If the economy doesn't perk up despite certain further tax cuts, or if any facet of the war goes terribly wrong, every single corpuscle of blame falls straight on the head of the man who said he needed a Republican Congress to basically save the country - George W. Bush. As for potential nominees, I think we can safely put an X through Daschle and Gephardt, no matter how much the latter wants it. They ran a campaign of nothing, and got just that in return. The election is a wash for Al Gore, who on the one hand is vindicated by having put forth an opposition and alternate vision for the country weeks ago, but on the other hand is hurt by having all the candidates for whom he stumped lose. Things look down for John Kerry, too, as outgoing Senator Max Cleland - the Vietnam veteran and triple amputee - proved that just about anyone can be made out to be Unamerican, even a war hero. Also, demographics seem to dictate that the Dems should pick a southerner - Kerry, of course, is from Massachusetts. Since geography is key, John Edwards' (of North Carolina) hopes seem to go up, but even he doesn't leave the night unscathed - Republican Elizabeth Dole picked up the soon-opening junior Senator seat in his state, against Erskine Bowles.
Maybe Election Night 2002 was a good night for Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, the only unabashed Bush-hater amongst the wanabees with nothing riding on who won or lost. If only anyone knew who he was.
Firstly, they need new leadership. Gephardt is already taking himself out of the minority leader's position, as he will attempt another feeble presidential run (no shot whatsoever). But Daschle needs to go too, as does the head of the DNC, Terry McAuliffe. They simply did not set an agenda that warranted anyone besides the most loyal party voter to choose the Democratics. This loss is not just an embarrassment because it occurred in the other party's presidential midterms, but because it showed the Democrats running without any ideas. The Republicans, in '94, had the Contract With America. This year, they had the "security" platform - "judicial security" by confirming federal judges, the homeland security department, "economic security" by making tax cuts permanent and unwavering support for war in Iraq. The Democrats resisted confirming even mildly conservative judges, warranted blame for the Homeland Security Department by getting hung up on union membership, stated a contradiction whereby the tax cuts were a bad idea but not worth repealing, and had a multitude of opinions on Iraq that were anything but unified.
It looks as if Nancy Pelosi or Mark Frost will be the new House Minority Leader. Either would do fine I guess, so long as they are a fresh face. In the Senate, I'd like to see Evan Bayh take the position, if possible, but if Daschle ever left, Harry Reid, the second in command, would likely warrant a lot of consideration. As for DNC Chair, which will almost certainly be vacated soon - it'd probably never happen, but Bill Clinton would be perfect for the job.
Next issue - the Democrats are all over TV and the newspapers today blaming the election results on the president's popularity. If they actually believe that, then the party is in worse shape than most think. Hopefully, in the meetings surely to take place over the next few days, when the bickering subsides a sober reality of having run a campaign without a platform will take the blame for this disaster. It was not the Republicans fault that the Dems lost - most Americans disagree with much of what they are proposing. And yet, by characterizing in retrospect the election as they have, the Dems have basically given the GOP a mandate for their agenda.
Finally, where does this leave us for 2004? On this front, all is not bad. If the economy doesn't perk up despite certain further tax cuts, or if any facet of the war goes terribly wrong, every single corpuscle of blame falls straight on the head of the man who said he needed a Republican Congress to basically save the country - George W. Bush. As for potential nominees, I think we can safely put an X through Daschle and Gephardt, no matter how much the latter wants it. They ran a campaign of nothing, and got just that in return. The election is a wash for Al Gore, who on the one hand is vindicated by having put forth an opposition and alternate vision for the country weeks ago, but on the other hand is hurt by having all the candidates for whom he stumped lose. Things look down for John Kerry, too, as outgoing Senator Max Cleland - the Vietnam veteran and triple amputee - proved that just about anyone can be made out to be Unamerican, even a war hero. Also, demographics seem to dictate that the Dems should pick a southerner - Kerry, of course, is from Massachusetts. Since geography is key, John Edwards' (of North Carolina) hopes seem to go up, but even he doesn't leave the night unscathed - Republican Elizabeth Dole picked up the soon-opening junior Senator seat in his state, against Erskine Bowles.
Maybe Election Night 2002 was a good night for Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, the only unabashed Bush-hater amongst the wanabees with nothing riding on who won or lost. If only anyone knew who he was.
posted by Marc at
6:41 PM
