Ted: The return of the undead
We're kicking off with a comment a visitor posted here yesterday: "That great German word 'Schadenfreude' is very apt for today. Funny how Eamonn's so quiet this morning... Sky News: 'Bush whacked in polls'. Maybe those Yanks are finally waking up from their ignorance and stupidity!" Ted.
For those unfamiliar with Rainy Day history, here's a quick backgrounder: In the days leading up the liberation of Iraq from the mass-murderer, Saddam Hussein, this blog was the scene of some rather emotional exchanges. Many of the counter arguments of that time were posted by "Ted", who specialized in a particularly unpleasant form of ad hominem attack and who trafficked in pathological anti-Americanism. And then, he disappeared. But like those animated corpses favoured by the horror film maestro George Romero, Ted is unputdownable. And as you can see from the above, he's back!
In his absence, however, he seems to have learned nothing and forgotten nothing, which is tragic. The complexities of Tuesday's vote are completely lost on such a bigot. Take the example of Arizona, where two of the loudest border hawks, Republicans Randy Graf and J.D. Hayworth, lost House seats. Those who argue that the Republicans lost their majorities because weren't tough on illegal immigration don't seem to understand that what is wanted by the majority of Americans are not just fences but a comprehensive solution to the crisis. Secure borders are part of the picture, but so are a temporary worker program and a mechanism for enabling illegals in the US to acquire citizenship. Voters saw that the Republicans were unable and unwilling to think this through, so they've placed their trust in the Democrats in the hopes that they can deliver. But if they don't…
Because all that's too complicated for the Teds of this world, here's something that they might be able to grasp. It's not unusual, as Tom Jones sang, for the incumbents to lose Congressional seats in a president's sixth year, but because the US is not a parliamentary system, losing a Congressional majority does not mean the President has lost his power. He can veto any legislation he doesn't like and the odds that Congress will deny him funding for the War on Terror are zero. But perhaps this is even too intricate for those who deal in anti-Americanism to comprehend. The bad news for them, though, is that their currency is now seriously devalued.
PS. Here's something that Ted, given his tendencies, will appreciate: Bram Stoker was the first to use the term "The Un-Dead". In fact, it was the original title for his novel Dracula, which begins, famously: "Jonathan Harker's Journal: 3 May. Bistritz. __Left Munich at 8:35 P. M, on 1st May, arriving at Vienna early next morning; should have arrived at 6:46, but train was an hour late. Buda-Pesth seems a wonderful place, from the glimpse which I got of it from the train and the little I could walk through the streets."
Comments
Of course, the icing on the cake was watching Rumsfeld getting his marching orders yesterday. He'd know what they were! Maybe Bush recalled Joschka Fischer balling at Rumsfeld back in Munich in 2003: "My generation learned you must make a case, and excuse me, I am not convinced".
I guess neither are the American people. Took them a few hundred thousand dead Iraqis and a few thousand dead of their own sons and daughters to figure this one out though. Sad really.
Ah well, the good news is, Bush's been hanged too. If only metaphorically.
Posted by: Ted | November 9, 2006 8:55 AM
But President Bush has already proposed a comprehensive solution! He offered a guest worker program with earnable citizenship for those in the US now, as well as a border fence to stop the influx of illegals. It was Republicans, fearful of hardline "no amnesty" voters, who turned the whole thing into a joke. Bush, with Democrats who support his approach, should force backward Republicans to pass his immigration package now. The fears of 12 million Hispanic "illegals" living in the United States have to be addressed as a matter of urgency and it would be a wonderful if it could be done before Christmas. Apart from being the Christian thing to do, it would also show whether the Democrats' sincerity on bipartisanship is real.
Posted by: gretchen r | November 9, 2006 11:45 AM
Ah - there's a point to be made here. There are complexities in the election loss for the Republicans for sure but this election was a referendum on Bush. I think so because the Democrats didn't have a strong message, strategy or decent campaign yet they still swept to power. It's the old saying, opposition parties don't win elections, Governments lose them. Bush lost and I'm personally pleased about that.
I deeply regret the state of US politics at the moment. I love the American people and all they've done for us (Europe) in previous wars and the Cold War but loathe how the most average American politicians use America's previous brilliance and compare it with today's cynical resource grab.
On immigration, what Eamonn says is the reasonable American's view is absolutely right - immigration isn't about walls and border patrol - it's about a wider solutions. This is simply common sense. Another reason American politics continually disappoints is that the negative campaigning and attack ads MAKE it about bigger walls and more guards. Over the time of Bush's presidency and Herr Rove's strategy of running to the right, this has become more of a problem and America less of a nice place to live. I place the blame squarely on the Republican doorstep.
People are vexed and worried about America. I think rightly so. I hope they articulate that it's the Government and not the people they're unhappy with.
May I respectfully suggest that Anti-Americanism, although given air by morons time and time again, is ALSO a more complicated issue?
Posted by: Tony Hannon | November 9, 2006 11:57 AM
One could also say that many Euros did NOT learn the lessons of WWII and the Cold War, given that so many are eager to appease and negotiate with extremists who place no value on dialogue. BTW, I believe that most on the left and right have rejected the Lancet report (again) for its innumerable inherent flaws, biases, outright lies, and huge margin of error. I believe HRW and Iraq Body Count, both very anti-war themselves, have provided sufficient rebuttals of Lancet's hysterical numbers.
Posted by: Patrick | November 9, 2006 7:27 PM
Interesting that the real "far right" in the US opposed the invasion of Iraq, just as they opposed the war in Vietnam. The Christian evangelicals, oil interests and Jewish Zionists are not the United States, as we have seen in this election.
One "far right" commentator says the US should have open immigration. Let everyone in, first tested for communicable diseases, but they don't get any benefits for ten years.
That’s very reasonable.
Yanks get pissed off that they can’t immigrate to Mexico and most other Latin and South American countries, buy homes, become citizens.
Posted by: Henry Barth | November 10, 2006 4:12 PM
Europeans might want to give thought to Mark Steyn’s remarks below. The US has no internal threats as has Europe. The Mexicans in the US will integrate easily; the evangelical and pentacostal ones will soon be voting Republican.
Brad: The face—or faces—of Europe is/are in transition. Which country is most likely to become majority-Muslim soonest?
Mark: Leaving aside Albania and Bosnia, the western European country that’s Islamizing fastest is France, in the sense that if you go to French cities the population under 20 is already close to 50/50 Muslim/non-Muslim. The important statistic is not just the crude numbers but which demographic has the advantage among young people, because that’s the future. You can have a situation where 90 per cent of the population might be ethnic Swedes and only 10 per cent Muslim, but if the ethnic Swedes are all over 70 and the Muslims are all under 30, then the future belongs to the Muslims. Although European countries are very wary of keeping demographically based vital statistics there are signs that the median age of French women is already beyond child bearing, which makes demographic recovery all but impossible. But the point to bear in mind is that it’s not necessary for Islam to become an actual majority in order to function as one. If you go back to the Muslim world at the height of its power, the majority of its subjects were non-Muslim.
Posted by: Larry May | November 10, 2006 9:37 PM
Yes, Eamonn, you're right, the situation is a bit more complex than the Teds of this world realize.
For instance, the referendums on emiment domain were a backlash against the Supreme Court Kelo ruling which weakened property rights. They passed in every state but California. Liberals are cheering the Arizona gay marriage vote - but gay marriage was on the ballot in 6 states, I believe, and lost everywhere else, including my very liberal-leaning state of Wisconsin. Wisconsinites voted Democratic - but the majority also voted for the return of the death penalty. If Pelosi, a San Francisco lefty, makes the mistake of interpreting Tuesday's results as a victory for liberalism, she's soon going to run into trouble with the moderate Dems from conservative states, who know they'll be one-term wonders if they swing to the left.
It's also simplistic to say that the vote was against "corruption." Our Democratic governor was reelected and he's been involved in scandals up to his eyeballs. He is currently the subject of a grand jury investigation and might just get indicted. The same holds true in NJ.
Scandals and corruption hurt Republicans, but not Democrats. My take is that voters have come to expect Democrats to be involved in pork-barrel spending, pay-offs, earmarking funds for special interest groups, etc. But the GOP came to power in 1994 because they promised they'd be different. Then, gradually, they were seduced by power. Dick Armey put it well in a Wall Street Journal article when he said that Democrats act like Republicans to get elected and all too many Republicans act like Democrats once they are elected. They started spending like drunken sailors on shore leave. On Tuesday, they got what was coming to them.
For my part, I'm pretty philosophical about it. Disappointing results in one mid-term election does not mean the end of the world, for God's sake. Back in '82, the Republicans were trounced in the midterm far worse than they were this year and pundits rushed to declare the end of Reaganism. Didn't work out that way, did it? In '92, I lived in Washington DC and the Dems were estatic on election night - finally, the end of the Reagan era, blah, blah, blah. 2 years later, they were reeling in shock. And, if the GOP gets its' act together, they'll be reeling in shock in '08 or '10 or '12.
In the meantime, I don't see a lot of conservative bloggers having hissy fits, retiring to bed for a week (like Michael Moore did after the '04 elections), or calling everyone else stupid. Interestingly enough, it's the leftists who are as ungracious and immature in victory as they are in defeat.
Anyway, I just happened upon your blog and I like it very much. And thanks for posting that great Howlin' Wolf video!
Posted by: Donna | November 11, 2006 7:07 PM