All the best post-election coverage is from the Left

All of the best coverage from last night came from people to the Left of me;
Jon Stewart, John Scalzi, and Stephen Colbert. (As for me, I'm not gloating.
I have full confidence that, as Scalzi puts it, the GOP won't suddenly
transform itself into a pragmatic and moderate party willing to work with
Democrats and the President, and therefore, House Republicans are going to
see lots and lots of stuff die in the Senate. But it's a start.)

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2010/11/03/election-thoughts-2010/

> Election Thoughts, 2010
>
> *Because I busied myself with revamping the site last night,* I went to
> sleep blissfully unaware of the election results, and then woke up,
> refreshed, to deal with what went down<http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/main.results/>.
> Here are some early thoughts.
>
> * It’s not Blue America or Red America, it’s Orange America! Yes, my
> representative, John Boehner, America’s Tallest Oompa-Loompa, is now the
> presumptive Speaker of the House. As I’ve noted before, I don’t think the
> circumstances that allow for his speakership are such a good thing, but that
> said, it’s certainly not bad for my district. I think prior to last night
> there was some discussion as to whether or not Boehner was actually the
> slam-dunk favorite for the Speaker position, but I imagine that winning the
> largest House swing in, what? 62 years? means that the guy in charge of the
> GOP in the House will see some benefit from that. Boehner also quite
> obviously won my district, and by the usual amount, about 66% to 30%. Sorry,
> Justin Coussoule. You know I voted for you, man.
>
> Elsewhere in Ohio, it was a GOP night as well, with GOPers taking the big
> state positions as well as our Senate seat that was up for election this
> year. It’s a mirror image of the result in 2006, and the GOPers elected here
> by and large qualify as mostly moderate (as did the Democrats four years
> ago), so I think this is less about Ohio being hugely blue or red and mostly
> about it being the bruised purple it’s been since I’ve been here.
>
> * As for the GOP tsunami in the House, well. It’s not what *I* wanted. You
> might recall that in 2006, when the Democrats took the house, I said that I
> felt the US had taken a sanity pill; right now I think the US might have
> gone off its meds. The GOP, its practices and its brain trust haven’t really
> changed between now and then; it’s the same intellectually dim bunch that
> led the economy and country into a wall during the 00′s. Insanity is often
> defined as doing the same thing and expecting different results, so
> congratulations, folks, we’ve gone a little nuts here.
>
> Inasmuch as GOP political strategy of mendacious loudness paid off in
> spades last night, I don’t really expect anything else out of them except
> more of the same for the next two years at least. We will see how well that
> strategy works in the long term, but obviously at this point there’s no
> reason for them not to keep doing it.
>
> * But as I’ve noted before<http://whatever.scalzi.com/2010/09/15/how-to-lose-the-house/>,
> the GOP may have put a gun to the head of the Democratic majority in the
> house, but it’s the Democrats who said, “dude, you’re holding it *wrong*,”
> jammed the gun into their own temple, and then pulled the trigger. The most
> accurate word I have for my feelings about the Democrats right now is *disgust;
> *disgust that they could get elected on a platform of substantial change,
> execute on many of the changes they campaigned on, and then allow the GOP
> and its allies to turn those actions in liabilities — well, again, *disgust
> *is not too strong a word.
>
> Dear Democrats: You managed to lose the House in historic proportions to a
> party whose strategy was to harness the inchoate anger of old white people
> so stupid that they don’t sense the inherent contradiction of screaming
> about a smaller government whilst cashing their federal checks. You are
> morons. Please find someone who can play this game and put them in charge of
> your electoral strategy, because what you’re doing now isn’t working. Also,
> henceforth, every time you whine about Fox News and shadowy financiers of
> the Tea Party, we get to beat you with a hammer. This is the political
> landscape now. Deal with it.
>
> * Ironically, the Democrats might have lost the Senate too, if not for
> Sarah Palin, who used her appallingly not-inconsiderable political weight to
> back the vaguely-insane candidates Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell in
> races that might otherwise have easily gone GOP with more mainstream,
> non-insane candidates. At this writing, the Democrats have 51 seats in the
> Senate, but they could have had 49, and it’s fair to say that it’s not so
> much that the Democrats held the Senate — the Democrats didn’t hold a damn
> thing last night — than Palin lost it for the GOP. This naturally suits me
> just fine. Dear GOP: Please keep using Sarah Palin for *everything*.
>
> * For everyone exulting/panicking that this means Obama’s a one-termer:
> After last night, do we really need to be reminded that two years is *a
> very long time *in politics? Let’s also recall how horrible the 1994
> mid-term elections were for Clinton’s re-election chances in 1996, i.e., not
> really at *all*, thanks for asking. So please, tamp down the freaking out
> or gleeful rubbing of hands together, depending on your political
> inclinations. Let the future take care of itself, and let’s focus on the
> now.
>
> That said, now quite obviously isn’t *good *for Obama, and once again I
> think the fault for that lies less with Obama than it does with the
> Democrats in the House and Senate, for the reasons noted above. This isn’t
> to *absolve *him of blame, mind you; his held-in reserve,
> non-losing-his-mindness demeanor suits me fine but I think the rest of the
> country would probably like to see him more worked up, and in the end he
> really should have ridden herd on the Democrats a lot harder than he did,
> and punished every one of them who wandered off the ranch. And now he gets
> to deal with it for the next two years, at least.
>
> * The good news for people philosophically aligned to Obama’s plans is that
> * a)* he did have those first two years, in which despite everything he
> managed to get quite a lot done, and *b) *thanks to Sarah Palin, the
> Democrats have kept the Senate, so what we’ve got here is a divided
> government.  This means that the things already passed on Obama’s agenda
> aren’t going to go away (although their funding might, which is a not
> inconsiderable thing) and that assuming as I will the GOP isn’t suddenly
> going to transform itself into a pragmatic and moderate party willing to
> work with Democrats and the President, the House Republicans are going to
> see lots and lots of stuff die in the Senate.
>
> The bad news for people philosophically aligned to Obama’s plans is that,
> well, you’ve had your fun now, haven’t you. The House is dead to you as of
> January, and it won’t be the quiet sort of dead; no, it will be a “fast
> zombie” sort of dead, the kind that rushes you and wants to feast on your
> brain while ripping open your guts. Enjoy that.
>
> * Contrariwise, the good news for people philosophically aligned against
> Obama’s plans is that *a) *divided government means the president’s
> legislative agenda comes to a grinding halt, *b)* the GOP has two years
> (at least) to make its case that they are better stewards of government than
> Obama and his crew.
>
> The bad news here for *you *is that the GOP this time around wasn’t
> elected because of its legislative philosophy, it was elected by a bunch of
> folks screaming *“do something”* without particularly well enunciating
> what it is they want done, except possibly thwarting Obama. However, Obama,
> who is not stupid, will likely shift his focus to administrative
> implementations of his agenda, and while the House may howl at this, any
> attempt to stop him is likely to get spiked in the Senate, or vetoed. So not
> only will the GOP not be thwarting Obama on many significant things, it also
> won’t be able to do much of anything legislatively, either. And it will be
> interesting to see how that plays out in the next couple of years, and in
> the 2012 election.
>
> All of which is to say it will be an interesting time for *everyone*. Just
> what we all wanted.
>
> * And you may ask, that’s all very interesting, John, but what does the
> election mean for *you? *Well, I’m touched at your concern and I’m glad
> you asked. One, as I noted, my Representative is very likely to be the next
> Speaker of the House, and that’s probably excellent for my district, and so
> naturally I’ll benefit from that. Two, as most of you know, I am white,
> male, heterosexually-paired and well-off, which means of course that the GOP
> has *totally *got my back.
>
> So while I am philosophically not aligned with the real-world aims and
> goals of the Republican party at this time, on a direct and personal level,
> the short-term effect on me is either neutral or mildly positive. So thanks
> for your concern, I’m fine. It’s folks not like me who might be twitchy. And
> oddly enough, most people *aren’t *the whole package of white, male,
> heterosexually-paired and well-off. I’m puzzled that enough of you keep
> looking out for *me*, even when I really don’t want or need the help.
> Really, folks, I and people like me are *fine*. Take care of yourselves,
> please.
>

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot