Election after-thoughts

Da American peeps have spoken, and it wasn't good for the Republicans. They've certainly got themselves and Bush to blame, but if you think about it--they've also got Saddam to blame. Had things not gone so wrong in Iraq this would have been a conservative cake-walk based solely on the economy, stock market, etc.

That doesn't entirely take away from the democrat win, but since most of the newbies ran against pro-war incumbents it certainly proves how much of an influence the Butcher has had on American politics. Despite his death sentence it's certain he's cracking a smile right now.

Moving forward it remains to be seen whether the terrorists will rub this in our faces as a sign of victory. Low level hoods like Nasrallah, al-Masri, or Mullah Omar might, which doesn't sound promising for our deployed troops, but since I was wrong on the aftermath of the Saddam verdict take it for what it's worth.

If Osama is still alive he might want to lay low in the hidey-hole and see if the democrats can force us out of Iraq legislatively before doing anything spectacular over stateside. Speaking of hidey-holes, Ms. Pelosi can now come out of hers. But anyway, ramping up of violence on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan would seem prudent in an effort to force that redeployment issue.

One more thing. To my 'angry liberal' friend Glenstein, this pretty much shuts the door on the ole Rovian conspiracy theory about manipulating the Diebolds, doesn't it!

MORE 11/08/06

Let me be clear, the Republicans lost Congress partly due to their own corruption and mismanagement and Bush's job approval, not just the pro-war stance. Case in point, many repub candidates ran on de-facto stay-the-course platforms and still won. Harold Ford never advocated a withdrawal and lost, while Joe Lieberman won Connecticut with a pro-war stance. Few of the democrats who defeated incumbents were calling for an immediate outright withdrawal.

Bottom line, the war seemed to hurt Republicans who had other vulnerabilities. And while it's risky to make blanket statements about what the vote meant, judging by the candidates who won and by the remaining near 50/50 split in the Senate it was more a punishment for Bush than a mandate to withdraw to the Murtha horizon.

Surely you could find many ugly examples of gloating on the web this morning, which I won't explore here. Some gloating is fine, but perhaps those folks should take a listen to Bob Corker's acceptance speech last night, which included a round of applause for Harold Ford. Remember, the dems are usually the ones who believe in this "working together" stuff.

On the right there is obviously a lot of mourning this morning. Here are some noteworthy posts:
Change has come, by Political Yen/Yang
Election Postmortem, Crush Liberalism
Times is tough, Six Meat Buffet

The wildcard reaction to this 'loss' might be from Israel. It's possible they'll conclude the big dem win as a vote of no-confidence from the US, partially based on their response being attacked by Hizballah. This morning we get the news the truce in Gaza is over. Nasrallah's reaction will also be interesting.

Meanwhile al-Reuters froths at the possibilities to come:

A Democratic victory in either house gives the party control of legislative committees that could investigate the Bush administration’s most controversial decisions on foreign, military and energy policy.

Which illustrates the most interesting reaction of all--will the new winners be true to their moderate words or just Pelosis in sheep's clothing?

Taking a cue from his Governor days, Bush immediately invited the new democrats to lunch. Oddly, Saddam also took a conciliatory approach after his recent 'setback'. Wonder what approach Baker will take?

MORE 11/08/06

Something hit me this morning. There were very few, if any, yard signs out for this election. Don't know if it means anything or not.

As to Rumsfeld leaving, not a shock to anyone. He should be applauded for his years of public service and for operating through a very difficult time. It's disgusting to see some of the nutroots treat him with more disdain than Saddam.

As to Iraq, the wheels are turning. We know the Butcher recently called for a cessation of hostilities (through his lawyer). Now the suspected leader of the Saddamists Izzat al-Duri, who probably controls other insurgent factions as well, has reiterated the call, according to the AP:

The Associated Press reported that former Iraqi vice president Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, Hussein's former second-in-command who is now a fugitive with a $10 million bounty on his head, has ordered Sunni insurgents loyal to the former president to cease attacks, according to government and parliamentary officials who claimed knowledge of the developments.

Meanwhile we've learned the Shiite dominated government is crafting a plan to get some ex-Ba'athists back into the bureaucracy. While it's hard to believe anything coming from Saddam's people it seems a deal might have been made, since intuitively the transfer of power in Congress would seem a positive for number one on Iraq's most wanted list.

LAST 11/09/06

Screaming headline at Huffpo: "It was the war, stupid". Ah, you can smell the scent of bi-partisan togetherness in the air, can't you!

But not really, Arianna. The democrats elected weren't anti-war as much as they were anti-Bush. The millions of young voters who showed up to vote democrat were probably energized by pablum such as Loose Change, Fahrenheit 9/11 and the constant hum of criticism from the blogs, Jon Stewart, Maher and others; or the notion that Bush was either trying to usher in fascism or start a theocracy, or both. After all, the right to kill fetuses with impunity or have gay weddings or whatever the social protest du jour happens to be is much more important than any ole war on terra.

Of more importance, the world has taken note, specifically the Euros, and they are snobbishly giddy. That should give everyone pause.