Decisions made in anger can often get you into a great deal of trouble. This is as true in politics as it is when you decide to take a swing at the ex-convict bouncer who tells you you've had one too many at your local bar. It seems so right at the time you do it, but you wake up the next morning in an alley with your wallet missing, your pants down around your ankles, blood in your urine, and you're walking kind of funny.
Today it's just dawning on America that we're like that angry drunk who has to live with the consequences of his actions the next day. We turned on the Republicans in power - and I admit to making some vengeance votes of my own - and now we have to live with the results for at least the next two years. Results most of us probably didn't even think about in our eagerness to punish the GOP for whichever of their failures irritated us the most, be it the lack of social security reform, the Iraq War, the Patriot Act or their hollow lip service on gay marriage and abortion.
When we voted we didn't think about anything but teaching the Republicans a lesson. Those of us who thought about it at all figured that we'd be okay if one house of Congress passed to the Democrats because it would probably just lead to gridlock and the government would do nothing for two years and we'd cruise along and everything would be okay. We didn't consider that the Democrats might take both houses, and we certainly didn't think about a relatively obscure issue like which specific Democrats were in positions where they would suddenly have a great deal of power after the election.
You see, it's not the idealistic and promising young Democrat challengers who got voted into office this week who are going to wield any real power in Congress, it's the creepy old dinosaurs of the party who have seniority and are in position to become the chairmen of the key committees which determine the course of government. They've been working for years to position themselves where they can have the most power and do the most damage. These guys have old scores to settle, they have unsavory connections and deeply ingrained corruption as bad as any Republican, and quite a few of them subscribe to extreme and dangerous views which their party tries to hide behind a facade of liberalism. These are the monsters of profligate spending and bureaucratic statism who we voted the GOP in to suppress in 1994, and in their years in the minority they've become crazy and embittered and spiteful, and now we've handed them the keys to power.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jet in Columbus
Did you channel the Ghost of Senator McCarthey and phone Rush Limbaugh for help on this one Dave?
2 - Clavos
A scary scenario.
Let's hope that GW has a good supply of veto forms (do they use a form?) handy, and the balls to use 'em.
It's decidedly unfashionable to say anything good about Republicans since 11/7, but nonetheless, they deserve recognition for the fact that they took their loss a lot more gracefully and with a lot less bitterness than the Dems did in 2000 and 2004.
3 - Les Slater
Many will look to the Democrats to do some of the things Dave is afraid of.
The Dems will have to find excuses not to do them.
So far they've been able to point to a Repub Pres and both houses in the hands of the Repubs? Now what? They still got Bush and his veto to blame.
Well, just wait until 2008 when the have the Pres AND both houses. There will be a Dem Pres that will veto the irrisponsible legislation, those bills that go too far.
Then the Dems will call for a veto-proof congress.
When they have it all they can point to their courage to do the unpopular thing.
4 - Clavos
Les #3:
A good argument for Bush not to use the veto for the next two years...
5 - TheLastFreeMan
If you accept the basic premise that socialism is an unqualified evil then it's hard to deny that things look pretty grim.
6 - Joey
The only thing that we have to be concerned about is having a milk toast congress that will not go far enough in prosecuting criminals who have taken over the White House and tossed the Constitution. This is not an issue of vengeance. Rational people do not operate out of vengeance. It is an issue of taking back the Bill of Rights. Ever hear of the "Patriot" Act? Now we have the Military Commissions Act (MCA). These two White House initiated unconstitutional pieces of legislation effectively destroyed the United States. The only rational course of action needed is a thorough and impartial investigation of this administration's activities during the past six years. This investigation should be lawful and the defendants accorded their Constitutional rights. (This is more than this administration would afford its "enemies", though).
Do not be surprised, however, should we not clean our own house to see an International Tribunal make it's way to our shores and drag this administration off to the Hague.
7 - Les Slater
Clavos #4
It's a game. The Dems will propose and pass legislation that they know will not get past a veto. Bush did this with his right 'base'. He would propose things that did not have 'a snowballs chance'. Well, he did try.
Of course Bush could call their bluf.
8 - Clavos
Les,
Yeah, he could.
But what I meant in #4 was that, based on the points you made in 3, and assuming the Rs don't want a D prez in '08, then Bush not vetoing all the D initiatives over the next two years and letting them go through, could turn the voters back toward the Rs for president in '08.
That, of course, assumes that the Ds will pass legislation unpopular with the voters, as Dave suggests in the article.
Lots of assumptions, but interesting to think about...
9 - Clavos
PS Les:
You're right about it being a game, but it's a pretty high stakes game...
10 - Maurice
Dave - I don't share your paranoia. There is a large conservative base of voters that will slap these guys silly if they get out of hand.
Joey - the illegitimacy of your comments are highlighted by your misspelling of the word milquetoast. You remind me of Bush.
11 - Les Slater
it's a pretty high stakes game...
And the expectations are high.
The war was an issue but in no way was it an anti-war vote, nor did the Democrats present it as such. The Democrats are promissing a face saving exit. This will entail continuation of the military occupation, along with the casualties.
The economy is an issue. The Democrats will under great pressure to do something. They may legislate an increase in minimum wage and Bush may not veto it.
Whatever happens in crongress, vetos notwithstanding, the economy for the majority of us will get worse.
Vetos or not, it will be both parties spinning to blame the other.
12 - Bob Jones
Nancy Pelosi the weakest? Oh ... how wrong you must be.
She is in fact the worst with her San Fransico values: 'Paying for Drug Abuse since 1987'. Not only would he Income Redistribution cripple the economy, it would be paying for Drug Abusers - like in Frisco.
13 - Clavos
Les,
Whatever happens in crongress, vetos notwithstanding, the economy for the majority of us will get worse.
Vetos or not, it will be both parties spinning to blame the other.
Again, we agree. Fasten your seat belt...
14 - RedTard
I'm not so sure bush will veto much unless it's totally over the line. He's not very conservative in my opinion and seemed a little too happy with the recent democrat win. Perhaps now his true colors will really stand out.
15 - Les Slater
"He's not very conservative in my opinion..."
He never was.
16 - handyguy
Very [and deliberately] provocative, Dave. But if we lefties started throwing around 'fascist' as frequently as you use the word 'socialist' in your piece, we would [justifiably] be pilloried for it. Yours is a vast overreaction. A year from now, you should be reminded of these extraordinarily intemperate words. [I will, I promise.]
The very narrow margin in the Senate, where in practice it takes 60 votes to pass anything, along with the President's [still unused] veto power will prevent anything extreme from happening, and you know it. There will be plenty of rhetoric in committee hearings, certainly, and since last time I looked, this is a democracy, bully for them. It's about time other voices were heard at least, if not listened to. The one-party rule of the last 6 years has been the true hell.
If Bush's badly articulated Social Security ideas were a nonstarter in the Republican Congress, why would the hostility of Rangel to the idea now make any difference? If the Dems are foolish enough to propose any major tax increases, they're toast, and they know it; they may try to target incomes over $200,000, but probably nothing below that, and even that will never pass the Senate or the President's desk. And worrying that pork spending will get worse, following the disgraceful example of the current Congress, seems to me a fantasy. Surely the Dems will realize the political advantage in avoiding that, since they've been howling about the deficit for 3 years. [But this is the one area you may be right about, if old habits overcome the D's sounder political instincts.]
I also would expect better from you than adopting the Fox News usage of 'Democrat' as an adjective.
And guns? What's so wonderful about guns? Jeez.
17 - JP
Dave, you've gone off the deep end here. Regarding the next two years, my philosophy was best spoken by Bush himself at one point: "Bring it on!"
18 - JP
Clavos, #2 - Invalid comparison. These were Congressional races, and the 2000 and 2004 races were for President.
When and if the Dems win another Presidential race, let's see how the Republicans respond. If they are indeed as "graceful" as they've been in 2006, I'll buy your premise.
19 - jayson
Congratulations! False Analogy of the Week!
"Today it's just dawning on America that we're like that angry drunk who has to live with the consequences of his actions the next day."
But, as usual, of some entertainment value.
20 - Richard
WOW .. what ignorance.
The entire planet earth breathed a sigh of relief watching the republicans go down in flames. Now we get this masterpiece of genius suggesting "the next two years could be hell".
Watch out for "socialists", "marxists" and liberals .. none of whom led us into the worst military blunder in American history or gave up the lives of more than 3,000 US troops or spent nearly a trillion dollars of US taxpayer money only to make IRAN more powerful .. not the US .. IRAN.
We've LOST influence, stature, credibility, and respect all over the world and made IRAN more powerful in the process.
What genius.
21 - Will
The Dems are actually more likely to work toward finding common ground between each other. Don't expect a hard swing to the left, guys. Part of the reason for their failure over the past twelve years has been the Clinton camp's centrist politics, which I'm not personally against, hurting party unity. Reconciliations are underway. Expect the Dems to pick a few moderate issues and ideals that are at least pallatable with the entire party. Expect a gently liberal climate over the next few years.
22 - Clavos
Clavos, #2 - Invalid comparison. These were Congressional races, and the 2000 and 2004 races were for President.
Which, since they change the makeup of the Congress, and it is Congress that runs the country (Bush would not have been able to make most of the changes he did without the Republican-majority Congress) makes my point even stronger.
What happened this year will affect America's future path much more than the outcome of any presidential election.
23 - jayson
OH, my God!!! It's a far left socialist takeover! A coup! To arms, to arms! Dave is calling all you fellow anarchists and fascists! Stomp out the all-powerful DSA which claims: "Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically"to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few."
Long live invisible unelected and uaccountale government! Down with government! Down with laws! Long live freedom to screw your fellow citizen 'til the cows come home and then ask him/her to lay down his life for you and your country. Beware! Beware! Join the libertarian-fascist-anarchists.
24 - ILoz Zoc
Definitely more frightening than most of the horror films this year. We need to get this into script form.
25 - Clavos
@#23:
You had one good point:
Down with government!