Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Rand

There is something here that has not been commented on by anyone in blogland. That is that the Republican in defeat have class. I have not heard about stolen elections, whining about the evil machines (notice that you have not heard this from the dem winners either).

Whatever you might say about the repubs, they believe in America and don't seek to tear down our system by continually whining about the unfairness of it all when they lose.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at November 9, 2006 07:31 AM

Dennis,

The Republicans didn't whine in previous elections either. The biggest hullabaloo from the Republicans were the slashed tires on election day 2004. In 2000, it may have been tit-for-tat, but since then, there has only been a Democrat tit with no responding tat. If Democrats lose the everything in 2008, I still expect the Democrat tit.

Posted by Leland at November 9, 2006 08:07 AM

The Republicans can afford to show class after the elections.

They certainly did't show much class in the wild assertions made about the Democrats in the runup to the elections. They did their best to FRIGHTEN the American people and failed. Let's just look at a small sample:

Bush: "A vote for the Democrats is a vote for the terrorists"

Allen: " Jim Webb's writings show a man unfit to represent women and children,"
" Let's give a hand to Macaca over here...welcome to the real Virginia..."

Dole: " The democrats will be happy to lose in Iraq"

Add to that the totally false fliers distributed by the Erlich and Steele campaign in Maryland, which by the way is going to become a BIG issue among black voters that they were so eagerly courting.

Yes, very gracious in defeat since the opinion of the majority of sane, thinking Americans became clear to all. Not gracious in terms of the lies they spewed prior to the elections.

Also, considering that this is Rand's first commentary on the election, what a choice of topic...I guess he can't bring himself to criticize the party he says he keeps saying he doesn't belong to...

Thank God, Democracy survived the Republican lie machine.

Posted by AnonElections at November 9, 2006 08:36 AM

Democracy even survived a sitting President lying in a court of law...and you have the gall to suggest the Reps own the lie machine. Get real.

Posted by Siege at November 9, 2006 08:57 AM

"Whatever you might say about the repubs, they believe in America"

Unlike Democrats, who hate freedom and hate America.

What I don't understand is why Bush fired Rumsfeld. Things are going great in Iraq. Everybody knows that. It's only the MSM that has been reporting bad stuff and Bush himself said that Americans did not vote Democratic because of the war. So why get rid of Rummy?

Posted by Tim Greeley at November 9, 2006 09:03 AM

Its called mudslinging, and its is a feature of a democracy. I don't find it interesting enough to pull out all the Democrat lines, but I will point out that it was a Democrat who called our troops in Iraq stupid and uneducated, while attempting to sling mud.

Posted by Leland at November 9, 2006 09:04 AM

Hmm

It is interesting that the Euroslackers and the Middle Eastern crazies are celebrating the dem win.

Only time will tell if this is a victory or a defeat for all of us.

The point is that the dem hate machine over the past six years has tried their best to destroy the foundations of our republic (maybe not intentionally but that has been the effect) by talking about stolen elections, spinning wild conspiracy theories about how diebold and Bush run the country ad nausem. These things hurt all of us and they just could not get enough of saying these things.

Tell me even ONE story by Democrats or the media about stolen elections this cycle, especially after all the hysteria over the past few weeks about it. Why is it NOT a problem when they win and such a threat to representative government when they lose.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at November 9, 2006 09:06 AM

My sources tell me that the reason that Rummy had to go is that Pelosi and he were sworn enemies and that the president really wants to get something done over the next two years and the kind of devisive crap that has gone on for the past several years had to end. It will be very bad as well if we lose Bolton but that may happen because Joe Biden has such a huge ego that he cannot countance being wrong about him.

If the dems start going on witch hunts and put this country into a continual tizzy over the next two years with investigations and crap then they will deservedly lose in 08.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at November 9, 2006 09:10 AM

Rand, why would Joe Lieberman want the job?

SecDef? Take over the Iraq war now? Why is that good for Joe? Switch to GOP caucus? How does that benefit Joe?

Joe is in a perfect place right now.

Reid, Clinton & Obama will do pretty much anything he asks. I predict Joe will remain in the Democratic caucus and will drop hints about switching whenever he feels he is not getting enough love from Hillary et. al. and then he will stay a Democrat.

= = =

Related, Robert Gates seems like a pretty good choice for SecDef.

Posted by Bill White at November 9, 2006 09:13 AM

Another Al Qaeda Victory

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/articles/20061109.aspx

Posted by Cecil Trotter at November 9, 2006 09:13 AM

Tim asks: What I don't understand is why Bush fired Rumsfeld. Things are going great in Iraq. Everybody knows that. It's only the MSM that has been reporting bad stuff and Bush himself said that Americans did not vote Democratic because of the war. So why get rid of Rummy?

First of all, I don't think Rummy was fired, I think it was his idea to step down. Everyone knows the Pelosi witch hunt is coming, so Rummy steping down is a step in reducing damage. The Inquisition will be less harsh if they feel the wrongdoers are cleaning up. I just hope the GOP keeps a good watch over the laws the left will trample to get to Bush and his crowd. They've shown time and time again, that laws mean nothing to them to get what they want, and they want to punish Bush

Posted by Mac at November 9, 2006 09:13 AM

Interesting link on Robert Gates found at Mudville Gazette:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/7194/iran.html

Posted by Bill White at November 9, 2006 09:21 AM

I didn't say switch to GOP caucus. He would remain a Democrat, just as Clinton had a Republican SecDef. Just guessing, but he might want to do it for his country...

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 9, 2006 09:39 AM

Many of you commenting here assume a Democarat "witch-hunt" is on its way. I don't think it is. I expect that the Democrats realize what an icredible mess we are in and save for some extremely overdue oversight will focus on looking for any way possible to resolve the Iraq crisis. I can't imagine Biden, Skelton, Clinton (that's Hillary), Murtha and Webb to name just a few are going to let America "lose". If you believe otherwise, just go back to listening to Rush Limbaugh and continue living in your fantasy world.

Posted by AnonElections at November 9, 2006 09:55 AM

I can imagine Biden and Murtha in heartbeat. If you don't think the Howard Dean wing will try flexing their muscle, you're as nuts as they are. The next two years are all about the White House, any posturing to the contrary is just that. It will be Pelosi v Clinton with Harry caught in the middle.

Posted by Bill Maron at November 9, 2006 10:30 AM

Iraq crisis? What Iraq crisis? The US lost 20 times as many soldiers in VietNam. The only crisis is the one of the heavily-slanted-left mainstream media's creation.

Posted by Ed Minchau at November 9, 2006 10:51 AM

This explains why Lieberman wouldn't be a good choice (hat tip Glenn)
http://large-regular.blog spot.com/2006/11/rumsfeld-interview-large-regular-was.html

Posted by Leland at November 9, 2006 10:59 AM

That's right Ed, there's no Iraq crisis. Just the bulk of our troops and Guard forces in endless rotations far from home with ONLY 3 deaths and 10 major injuries per day on average with NO clearly articulated reason for being there and NO viable plan for the future. I guess that's not a crisis in your eyes for the simple reason that we lost far more per day in Vietnam.

That's really fascinating logic. Perhaps we should draw random lots among the troops and just shoot them here at home so we save on the airfare. As long as the death/injury rate is less than Iraq, the troops would be better off here if we were to follow your logic.

What is the end-state we want? At the very least define that and do so NOW. Congress has failed utterly in allowing a Presidential neo-con fantasy ably supported by the right wing talk show nuts to proceed for 3 1/2 years with no definition demanded. Having defined the end state then we can talk about whether that end-state is achievable in reality and if so how and what should be done to get there.

Posted by AnonElections at November 9, 2006 11:07 AM

"I can't imagine Biden, Skelton, Clinton (that's Hillary), Murtha and Webb to name just a few are going to let America "lose"."

What if they thought that America "losing" was actually a good thing? Didn't "losing" in Vietnam and Korea, in the minds of the Democrats, make America a better place, teach those mean ol' Republicans about how war is bad, and let the rest of the world know that we really aren't that great a country after all? In their mind, "losing" causes humility; they might say it builds character. Remember, the battlecry after 9/11 was "Why do they hate us?" Democrats have always wanted the US to do some introspection and then do a little flagellation, so that all the rest of the world - the UN, Iran, North Korea, Syria, those wonderful peace-loving Palestinians - can forgive us for our arrogance and let us take our rightful place as completely even, not-better-in-any-way-from-the-worst-dictatorships-on-the-planet partners. If you thought that way, why not have America "lose"?

Posted by Just John at November 9, 2006 11:34 AM

Perhaps we should draw random lots among the troops and just shoot them here at home so we save on the airfare. -AnonElections

This writen by the guy who complained about mudslinging.

What is the end-state we want? At the very least define that and do so NOW.

See, the funny thing is the Democrats just got voted into power. Why don't you ask the Democrats what is the end-state they want and have them define that. Now would be nice, but before the election would have been better. But I think the Democrats got the end-state they wanted, they wanted to be back in power and Rumsfeld taken out.

Posted by Leland at November 9, 2006 11:46 AM

AnonIdiot: "Just the bulk of our troops and Guard forces in endless rotations.. blah blah"

"Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said the 200,000 U.S. military troops in the Gulf have not diminished U.S. warfighting power and 2 million troops are on standby. “And that should not be lost on any potential enemies,” he said. "

Posted by Cecil Trotter at November 9, 2006 12:22 PM

Just as many GOP-ers assert that Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter do not define the GOP, the leftie blogs do not define the Democratic party.

I predict the Democrats in Congress will adopt large portions of policy proposals on Iraq to come from James Baker and his study group. "Jimmy" Baker (to use the President's preferred name) is about as far from moonbat as one can go.

I also suspect that Robert Gates is a preliminary step in preparing the way for a Baker-esque solution to the Iraq problem.

Posted by Bill White at November 9, 2006 12:49 PM

PS -- If the new Congress and the President together adopt a James Baker-esque solution for Iraq, perhaps the nuttiest netroots and the shrillest neo-cons will join forces to condemn the new Iraq strategy, albeit for exactly opposite reasons.

Posted by Bill White at November 9, 2006 12:51 PM

Jim Baker … isn't he one of the architects of the failure to deal with Iraq in 1991, kicking it a decade down the road for someone else to deal with?

Posted by Annoying Old Guy at November 9, 2006 01:03 PM

Bill: "the leftie blogs do not define the Democratic party"

No the leftie leaders like Pelosi, Reid and Dean define the Democratic party.

And I've already heard stories indicating Pelosi will deny Chairmanships to any moderate Democrats who cooperated in any way with the Bush Admin.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at November 9, 2006 01:09 PM

And I've already heard stories indicating Pelosi will deny Chairmanships to any moderate Democrats who cooperated in any way with the Bush Admin.

I hope you are wrong, but time will tell.

And as for me, I have been active within the left blog-o-sphere these past few days arguing strenuously against that type of approach.

Posted by Bill White at November 9, 2006 01:12 PM

Robert Gates is part of James Baker's Iraq study group and here is a link about that group. One quote:

The fact that Baker is involved has sent the Washington rumor mill buzzing with the theory that the commission is really a Trojan Horse for the views of Baker's friend and former boss, George H.W. Bush. It has been widely speculated that the former president never agreed with his son's decision to invade Iraq, and the son appears to have repaid that perceived dissent by largely refusing to reach out to his father for advice on national security, despite the elder Bush's knowledge and experience.

and this

Since March, Baker, backed by a team of experienced national-security hands, has been busily at work trying to devise a fresh set of policies to help the president chart a new course in--or, perhaps, to get the hell out of--Iraq. But as with all things involving James Baker, there's a deeper political agenda at work as well. "Baker is primarily motivated by his desire to avoid a war at home--that things will fall apart not on the battlefield but at home. So he wants a ceasefire in American politics," a member of one of the commission's working groups told me. Specifically, he said, if the Democrats win back one or both houses of Congress in November, they would unleash a series of investigative hearings on Iraq, the war on terrorism, and civil liberties that could fatally weaken the administration and remove the last props of political support for the war, setting the stage for a potential Republican electoral disaster in 2008. "I guess there are people in the [Republican] party, on the Hill and in the White House, who see a political train wreck coming, and they've called in Baker to try to reroute the train."

Lets see how the neo-cons line up concerning support for Robert Gates.

Interesting times. Very interesting times.

Posted by Bill White at November 9, 2006 01:25 PM

OK Leland, what is the end-state you want? Tell us exactly what is that satisfactory end-state in which we can withdraw our forces from Iraq. Let's talk about whether that end-state is feasible after you've defined that. Bush, who started this whole mess, has had an ever changing rationale for why we are there, so don't ask the Democrats for the end-state before you tell us yours. That is unless you just want to palm off everything that goes wrong in the future on the Democrats, which just may be what you are getting at.

Posted by AnonElections at November 9, 2006 03:35 PM

AE, what would you consider suitable conditions for our removing all remaining US troops from Germany in the aftermath of WWII?

Posted by triticale at November 9, 2006 07:28 PM

Lieberman would make an excellent SecDef for Bush.

He's convinced Iraq is going swell, that US Troops are
winning, that the only problem is the press and the
democrats.

Lieberman would make an excellent bush appointee.
He's never served in the military, he was an Attorney
General and a senator, so he's of course, well suited to
manage an enormous complicated military machine.

Or Bush could Hire Mike Brown to run DoD.
I hear he really knows a disaster when he sees one.

Posted by anonymous at November 9, 2006 09:27 PM

oh yeah, and I would make an excellent mouthpiece for liberal wackos like Dean and Pelosi. I have the rhetoric down

I volunteer if you're reading this Howard

Posted by anonymous at November 10, 2006 05:04 AM

AE says: Many of you commenting here assume a Democarat "witch-hunt" is on its way. I don't think it is.

With what Pelosi has said, its pretty obvious that she'll have to pursue impeachment and/or litigation against Bush. After eight years of spewing hatred and vitriol at the president, they have their chance to truly damage him. As was the case with Clinton's treatment of the White House, Pelosi won't care what damage is done to the office, as long as she's seen as doing what needs to be done. A successful witch hunt will catapult her ahead of Hillary for the nod next election. And don't believe for a second she's not thinking ahead to that.

Posted by Mac at November 10, 2006 06:39 AM

Looks like Lieberman is doing all right. According to today's edition of washington post, Lieberman will be the senate chairman of the committee on homeland security and governmental affairs.

Posted by Ryan Zelnio at November 10, 2006 09:08 AM

Laf

I can just imagine this exchange

"Lieberman"

Hi Harry, you know I was elected as one strong on national defense and homeland security and would like to run that committee.

"Reid"

Well, I don't know Joe, you know that the direction that you supported with the president lost them control of the Senate and your position on this is in diametric oppostion to the vast majority of the caucus.

"Leiberman"

Harry, I am sure that you understand my level of conviction on this subject and I am quite serious about this committe assignment.

"Reid"

Well I really need to consult with Mr. Kennedy and Ms. Clinton and we will get back to you on this.

"Lieberman"

Harry, you just do that. Oh by the way I am having lunch with the president of the Senate, Dick Cheney tomorrow.

"Reid"

Congratulations Joe! You got the job!

"Leiberman"

Thanks Harry, I knew that you would see the light.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at November 10, 2006 09:17 AM

Dennis, that is exactly why Joe Lieberman will not agree to be SecDef and will not caucus with the GOP. Right now, Joe is one of the most powerful men in America.

Posted by Bill White at November 10, 2006 09:42 AM

Right now, Joe is one of the most powerful men in America.

Yes. His party dumped him, yet he didn't abandon them nor his own convictions. He has the respect of people on the right, the vote from people on the left and right, and he makes a majority for the left (so long as they play ball with him). He can dump the left, and they'd have no one to blame but themselves.

Posted by Leland at November 10, 2006 11:38 AM

Leland, tell me who among the leading Democrats campaigned for Ned Lamont?

Hillary? Obama? Reid? Pelosi? Who? How was Lieberman "dumped" by the party?

Posted by Bill White at November 10, 2006 04:04 PM

Bill,

Howard Dean, the Democratic National Chairman.

Posted by Leland at November 10, 2006 09:16 PM

Bill:

I have a lot of respect for your views and ability to think, but that question really is ridiculous. Lieberman himself claimed only 5 Democrats stood by him. In other words, 90% of the Democrats that will take their seats in the Senate did not support Lieberman.

Reid and Schumer were the first to have a joint press conference to back Lamont and ask Lieberman not to run as an Independent.

Posted by Leland at November 11, 2006 05:01 AM

Thanks Leland, I will attempt to answer as best I can.

First, plenty of people on the Right assert Lieberman has integrity. Many of the Left say Joe is for Joe. Thus, Rand's suggestion that Lieberman might agree to be SecDef "for the good of the nation" strikes me as funny. SecDef? What's in it for Joe? Join the GOP caucus because "its the right thing" to do? Not if Joe is the Joe I think he is. Watch over the months and years to come and tell me if Karl Rove will get value for the money he gave Joe Lieberman.

Ned Lamont was mostly self funded. He got very little or no money from the Democratic party (none in the primary). Daily Kossites sent Ned money but they represent an insurgent wing of the Democratic party Hillary and Rahm and Carville would very much like to just go away.

During the primary, no big names supported Lamont. After the primary (and by the way shouldn't primaries count for something?) the party scarcely supported Lamont with most Democrats staying as far away from CT as possible.

Howard Dean did support Lamont but then again, Carville, Hillary, Rahm and maybe Obama would prefer thet Dean also disappear. Remember, Howard Dean, Ned Lamont and Daily Kos are obstacles to Hillary 2008. ABH (anyone but Hillary) is a strong sentiment at Kos and Hillary was one of the happiest gals around with Lieberman's win.

(Did you see Carville's whine that if someone other than Howard Dean were DNC chair, we would have won even more seats? What's Carville smoking?)

Election was this past Tuesday, right? Joe is already slated for a new top subcommittee role.

With the Democratic takeover of the Senate, Lieberman is in line to become chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Lamont's people wanted Reid to strip Joe of seniority. No way answered Reid. Joe ran as an independent yet Harry Reid saved Joe's seat for him. Sounds like support to me.

= = =

The Forvm a new discussion forum filled with refugees from tacitus.org after Josh Trevino shut it down. Here is a funny riff written by a member over there:

Now that the election is safely over and Holy Joe has confirmed that he's a Democrat, the truth can finially be told.
Cast your mind to wintry day in early 2006. It's early morning. Howard Dean is lounging around his home in has favorite flannel bathrobe and, as he does every morning, he is drinking a frothy, chai latte and sticking pins in an 8x10 glossy of John Kerry when the phone rings unexpectedly. Dean snatches the reciever off the hook answers with snarl in his voice.

Who do you think is on the line? Why it's Holy Joe Lieberman. And you know what, he's got this cockamamie scheme to win back the Senate.

What's Lieberman's plan? He's going to lose the Democratic primary and run as and Independent. Seems that there's this sucker Ned Lamont who's all hot to spend his own money on a primary challenge. Joe figures he'll do everything he can to lose the primary; campaign badly, underspend, act all petulant to piss off the Democratic base. Then he'll call the Times and ask them to endorse Lamont. With any luck, Ned wins in a squeaker, making him the Democratic candidate for Senate.

Of course, the second part of Joe's plan, that's the beauty part. Joe declares as an independent. Then he makes the rounds among the GOP faithful, sucking up money that otherwise would have gone to Allen in Virginia or Burns in Montana or Talent in Missouri. Those Republicans just love Joe. How could they not give him money. Those "nutroots" need to be put in their place!

Meanwhile, Lamont finds himself out in the cold, with virtually no support or money from the DNC. Joe wins in a walk and maybe -- just maybe -- with millions of dollars that would have gone into critical Republican reaces directed to an "Independent", the vulnerable GOP senators go down to defeat.

Of course, it's all just a fantasy. Nobody would actually plan something like this.

Heh.

True? I dunno, I didn't write this wild scenario. But if Joe remains a loyal Democrat, the net effect is the same.

Anyway, the forvm.org is a cool place. Wingnust and moonbats actually discuss hot button issues with a fair level of civility. I like it there.

Posted by Bill White at November 11, 2006 05:01 PM

PS -- Primaries need to count for something and thus the initial press conferences.

But after those initial press conferences, did Reid et. al. campaign for Joe? How much money did the Democratic party give Ned? And remember Ned Lamont's people said that the national party pretty much abandoned him.

But any which way, its water under the bridge. Joe and Harry have mended their fences and Lieberman will assure the Democrats of 51 seats in the Senate.

Posted by Bill White at November 11, 2006 05:16 PM

What's in it for Joe? Join the GOP caucus because "its the right thing" to do?

Bill, why do you continue to repeat this nonsense about "joining the GOP caucus"?

He has said he wouldn't do that. I have said that becoming SecDef doesn't do that, because (SURPRISE) it doesn't. Yet you persist in this fallacy.

Or is it that you don't really believe this, but want to persuade others that it's so...?

I'd like to think not.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 11, 2006 06:15 PM

Bill,

I agree that Joe is unlikely to accept SecDef for his own reasons. It would mean in two years, he have to retire from politics. I doubt a Democrat successor to President would keep him, and I don't think a Republican successor would keep him either. SecDef wouldn't position Joe for a run for President, and if he did try to run, which party would he seek a candidacy?

By staying a Senator, Joe has guaranteed 6 more years of relevancy. He might be better positioned for 2012.

As for switching parties, here's a story on his appearance of Meet the Press.

Posted by Leland at November 12, 2006 04:20 PM

Post a comment