The Washington Times

When people look back on the 2006 elections 10 years later, what will they see? A turning point ushering in a new era of Democratic congressional dominance? Or an Iraq-induced bump in the otherwise smooth road of Republican dominance that reflects the center-right character of the American electorate?    

Read the rest of this entry »

The Washington Times

As we mull the implications of the November elections for what comes next in Iraq, it’s worth keeping in mind that this was, in fact, the third time voters have had an opportunity to weigh in on the subject. I think that there are some reasonable conclusions to be drawn from the electoral judgments voters have rendered. But if people fail to look at all three and concentrate exclusively on the most recent, they are going miss some important aspects of our current predicament.  The first thing to note is that the surprising midterm Republican pickup of seats in 2002 took place against the backdrop of a rather one-sided debate about going to war in Iraq. True, some House and Senate Democrats voted against the congressional authorization of the war. For this, they have earned the lasting gratitude of their party’s left wing. But many Democrats joined most Republicans in support of the use of force against Saddam Hussein if he failed to comply with U.N. resolutions.    

Read the rest of this entry »

A self-help plan for the GOP. 

View this article at The Weekly Standard

PATHETIC REPUBLICANS, who can save you now? With all due respect to Ming the Merciless and all due deference to Sen. John McCain’s pending arrival on a Hawk-man rocket cycle in 2008, the answer is that Republicans can, and are going to have to, save themselves. To do that, what’s required is frank acknowledgment that the national majority that brought them to congressional power in 1994 is a thing of the past–no longer there, or no longer theirs.

The wave that gave Republicans control of Congress for the first time in 40 years was truly national in reach and scope. You could see its effect in every region of the country, though of course it was at its strongest in the South, where the last redoubts of the yellow-dog Democrats were being overrun.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Washington Times

Generally speaking, elections are about comparative judgments. It’s not so much a matter of “What do you think of Mr. A?” and “What do you think of Mrs. B?” It’s “What do you think of Mr. A compared to Mrs. B?” Whom do you choose between the two?     

This fact has spelled political survival for many a candidate in trouble. Because even if the answer to the question of what you think of Mr. A is “not much,” compared to Mrs. B, Mr. A may not look so bad. I’m reminded of a story I heard about Alfonse D’Amato’s successful primary challenge in 1980 against New York Republican Sen. Jacob Javits. Mr. D’Amato attacked the much beloved Mr. Javits for being, well, old and infirm. It worked like a charm. The story goes that on primary election night as the returns came in, Arthur Finkelstein, Mr. D’Amato’s political guru (Mr. D’Amato’s term) turned to him and said, “The good news is you won. The bad news is that everybody hates you.”   

Read the rest of this entry »

The Washington Times

Beginning a little less than a year ago, Democrats set expectations for today’s elections at levels ranging from high to highest: They were going to win back control of the House for the first time since 1995 and the Senate as well. The reasons for this coming victory were an increasingly unpopular war undermining the Republicans’ key advantage on national security issues; a Republican-controlled Congress that, in their telling, was a slough of corruption and complacency; and the alternative program playing to their own strengths on domestic policy they were going to offer voters.    

Read the rest of this entry »