Election thoughts

Now that the giddy high has subsided, it's time to take stock of what the Democratic sweep of Congress and the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld actually mean. In doing so, it's difficult to not turn my thoughts back to Iraq. Because if anything, this election was a referendum on how that war's been prosecuted (never mind whether it should have even been started or not.)

Why did Rumsfeld resign the day after the election? I'm sure there were political considerations -- the Bush administration would have perceived it as being weak in the face of their political opponents -- but I think the timing, and the choice of Robert M. Gates to replace him, signal to me that the Bush administration was on the fence about how to proceed.

The Iraq Study Group, which Gates belongs to and which was led by Jim Baker, is said to have recommended two courses of action, at least one of which is rumored to be a phased withdrawal. (The results of the study haven't been released yet, nor are the terms or shape of the withdrawal proposals.) I can't help but wonder if the political choice the Bush team was faced with wasn't between "staying the course" and the phased withdrawal, and if the election's results hadn't forced their hand.

If the GOP had held on to either house of Congress (and it was clear where the Senate was going, despite the Burns & Allen show) or even lost by narrower margins, the president could have moved forward relatively unhindered, but the decisiveness of the loss effectively made the decision for them. The clamor from Congress would have been tremendous if they didn't make swift changes.

As a member of the study group, it's clear that Gates is going to act on whichever course of action he recommended. Why else would Bush nominate him for the job. If he wanted to stay the course, there were much better choices politically -- as everyone has pointed out, nominating Joe Lieberman would have put a Republican in his senate seat, and flipped the Senate. Not making that decision is final proof that the president's political capital is spent.

I'm not saying it's going to make anything better, just trying to come to grips with what happened.

Who Killed the GOP?

The Washington Post has a good write-up of the Republican circular firing line. Money quote:

In the aftermath of the historic GOP losses Tuesday night, moderate Republicans quickly concluded that the party needs to be more moderate. Conservative Republicans declared that it should be more conservative. Main Street is angry at Wall Street, theo-cons are angry at neo-cons, and almost everyone is angry at President Bush and the GOP congressional leadership.

Pretty much sums it up. For another take, my friend and "Goldwater-Republican-turned-Libertarian-Congressional-candidate" Joe Cobb points out that, "As a Libertarian, I am proud of what my fellow partisans achieved in Montana this past election day. Our candidate, Stan Jones, got 10,166 votes. This was about six times the margin of victory by Senator-elect Jon Tester."