Maryland dirty tricks, continued

In an update to the Maryland item in my pre-election dirty tricks post, the deception goes further than originally thought.

The glossy fliers bore photos of black Democratic leaders on the front. Under the headline “Democratic Sample Ballot” were boxes checked in red for Ehrlich and Senate candidate Michael S. Steele, who were not identified as Republicans. Their names were followed by a long list of local Democratic candidates.

I understand playing hardball. I even understand -- though despise -- attack ads that stretch the truth or sling mud to make their point.

But outright lying to voters in an attempt to trick them into voting for you? And on behalf of a black Senatorial candidate no less? Give me a break.

I've lost a lot of respect for Michael Steele. As for Ehrlich -- whose campaign appears to be the driving force behind these tricks -- he deserves more. Like a lawsuit and serious fines, for instance. This stuff is beyond the pale.

Maryland, Ehrlich, Steele, politics, midtopia

GOP adrift?

Taken in conjunction with the post just below this one on Mel Martinez, it's starting to seem like Republicans aren't sure what to do.

The depleted House Republican caucus, a minority in the next Congress, convenes in the Capitol at 8 a.m. Friday on the brink of committing an act of supreme irrationality. The House members blame their leadership for their tasting the bitter dregs of defeat. Yet the consensus so far is that, in secret ballot, they will reelect some or all of those leaders.

In private conversation, Republican members of Congress blame Majority Leader John Boehner and Majority Whip Roy Blunt in no small part for their midterm election debacle. Yet either Boehner, Blunt or both are expected to be returned to their leadership posts Friday.

You know it's especially bad when conservatives start accusing each other of drinking Kool-Aid:

That reluctance is typified by Rep. Eric Cantor, a 43-year-old third-term congressman from Richmond who has been his party's chief deputy whip for four years since being appointed by Blunt after only two years in the House. His voting record is solidly conservative, and he belongs to the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC). At the same time, Cantor is well regarded in all sectors of the party, and members see him as the principled kind of rising politician that Republicans desperately need.

But Cantor is not seizing this post-election moment to seek an elected leadership position. On the contrary, he has been supporting Blunt for reelection as whip out of loyalty to his mentor and patron. Bright and able though he is, Cantor has drunk the Kool-Aid in viewing the Republican Party as a private club where personal loyalties must transcend all else.

What's going on? Are Republicans simply out of ideas? Or do they reject the notion that the election changed anything?

Weird.

politics, midtopia

Martinez to take over RNC

Not Michael Steele, as previously rumored. But Florida Sen. Mel Martinez.

This seems like an odd pick. Martinez will remain in the Senate, limiting how active he can be with the RNC. And he's not exactly someone who captures the imagination and energizes the party. In fact, he barely squeaked into office on Bush's coattails in 2004, and is better known for public gaffes than for sound policy.

Conservative bloggers are a bit less than overjoyed, and I can hardly blame them. The GOP is hamstringing its national operation in the runup to 2008 -- and for what? To reach out to Hispanic voters? To reward a Bush loyalist?

Is there some way this actually makes sense?

politics, midtopia

It's the media's fault!

Some conservatives are sinking back into the dark pits of paranoid fantasy.

Make no mistake. Along with the multitude of Republican gaffes, and the hard work of the Democrats, there can be no doubt that the left-of-center mainstream media helped to manufacture this election victory for the Democratic Party. For parts of the last two years, many in the media have worked in concert with the Democratic spin doctors to indoctrinate the American voter into believing this election had to be a referendum on President Bush and the "failed" war in Iraq.

Horrified by Mr. Bush's re-election in 2004, as well as the historic Republican gains in the House and the Senate that year, some liberals in the media were determined to do everything in their power to ensure that there was no GOP celebration in 2006, even if that meant confirming to the world that they proudly abandon professionalism and ethics in the name of partisanship and ideology.

To make the election of 2006 a referendum on Mr. Bush and "his" war, the media knew full well they had to present that conflict in the worst possible light for as long as possible on their nightly newscasts, cable programs and front pages. Then, after force-feeding the American people a steady diet of this carnage for weeks at a time, the same media outlets would then "poll" the voters to get their impressions of Iraq and Mr. Bush.

This trope is getting old.

Is the bias of Western journalists the reason Iraqi men are tattooing their names on their bodies so that loved ones can identify them when they die?

Is the bias of Western journalists the reason that 1.8 million Iraqis have fled the country and another 1.6 million are internal refugees -- more than 12 percent of the entire Iraqi population?

Is the bias of Western journalists the reason sectarian violence is killing dozens and sometimes hundreds of Iraqis a day?

Is the bias of Western journalists the reason more of them have died in the three years of fighting in Iraq than died in the entire 20 years of the Vietnam war?

I could go on. The situation in Iraq is bad enough that the media didn't have to lie about it, even if they were inclined to.

politics, midtopia

What sort of army are we standing up?

It's stuff like this that makes me question whether Iraq is "winnable" in any sense we'd recognize.

Brig. Gen. Shakir Hulail Hussein al-Kaabi was chosen this summer by the Shiite-led government in Baghdad to lead the Iraqi Army’s Fifth Division in Diyala Province. Within weeks, General Shakir went to Colonel Jones with a roster of people he wanted to arrest.

On the list were the names of nearly every Sunni Arab sheik and political leader whom American officers had identified as crucial allies in their quest to persuade Sunnis to embrace the political process and turn against the powerful Sunni insurgent groups here.

“Where’s the evidence?” Colonel Jones demanded of General Shakir. “Where’s the proof? What makes us suspect these guys? None of that stuff exists.”

To that, Colonel Jones recalled, the Iraqi commander replied simply, “I got this from Baghdad.”

The incident was one of many that alarmed Colonel Jones, who just completed a yearlong tour as commander of American forces in Diyala. In the end, he said, he concluded that the Iraqi general’s real ambition was to destroy the Sunni political movement here — possibly on orders from Baghdad.

The article goes on to detail how the Iraqi military is increasingly being wielded as a weapon by Shiites against Sunnis -- and that the orders seem to come from Iraq's central government, thus making it part of the problem rather than a bulwark against sectarian anarchy.

Proponents of "staying until we win" in Iraq need to detail exactly what "winning" entails -- and how it will be achieved in the face of such realities.

terrorism, Iraq, politics, midtopia

Democratic plans

Thus far the Democrats are being very careful with their newfound majority, avoiding extreme partisan talk or scary agendas and focusing on a few laudable goals.

Among them:

Clean up government. There's always a disconnect between action and rhetoric on this issue, but Nancy Pelosi has vowed to run the cleanest Congress in history, and she already has one of the means to do it: The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which she tried and failed to get through the GOP congress. It prohibits congressmembers from accepting most gifts from lobbyists, including travel on corporate jets, meals, tickets and entertainment. And it would create an independent office to catalog lobbyist contacts. That's a big start. But the elephant in the room is earmarks. Normally I'd apologize to Republicans for the elephant metaphor, but the fact is that earmarks have exploded under Republican rule, in part because Republicans made a concerted effort to ensure that lobbyists paid through the nose for such favors. If Pelosi can't or won't rein those in, corruption will continue apace -- and will lose its Republican tinge.

Fiscal responsibility. Some people find it weird or false to hear Democrats talk about this, but the last six years of Republican rule should have shredded any belief voters had that Republicans were capable of fiscal discipline. Even if you think Democrats will raise your taxes, tax-and-spend is more defensible, both ethically and economically, than borrow-and-spend. The centerpiece of this effort is PayGo, which means reinstituting Clinton-era rules that required any new spending or tax cuts to be offset by spending cuts or tax hikes. It's a common-sense rule that prevents Congress from adding to the deficit and encourages them to start reducing it.

What's odd is how senior Republicans like John Boehner (likely to be the new minority leader in the House) oppose it. Their logic: it encourages tax hikes, because it's easier to raise taxes than cut spending. Only in partisanland would the argument "don't impose fiscal discipline because I can't keep myself from raising taxes" be taken seriously.

In the end, though, the argument should be less about economics and more about ethics. It is unethical to force our kids and grandkids to pay for programs we're spending on ourselves. Borrowing money to win World War II is one thing; borrowing money so that we can have lots of government services and low taxes is simply reprehensible.

They'll also preserve the estate tax, which I fully support. If you're going to restructure a tax, it should be the Alternative Minimum Tax. It makes no sense to give multibillionaires a huge tax break while the AMT expands to ensnare more and more middle-class taxpayers.

Oversight. This is where the new Congress can really shine if it can avoid a few tantalizing pitfalls. Congress needs to reassert its oversight role, and there is every indication that it will do so. For starters, Democrats say they will revoke the last-minute provision that stripped funding from the Iraq auditor's office. Such moves are laudable. The risk, however, is that Democrats will gleefully launch dozens if not hundreds of investigations into administration activities, using them to harass Bush rather than focus U.S. policy. A number of investigations are called for, including the long-delayed report on U.S. use of intelligence in the runup to Iraq, examinations of the incompetent occupation planning and probes of some of Bush's more controversial initiatives, like warrantless eavesdropping. But endless fishing expeditions are not what Democrats were elected to pursue.

After that the Dems have a few populist measures planned: raising the minimum wage, reforming the Medicare Part D debacle, stuff like that.

All in all, a good, substantive agenda that seems destined to enjoy a lot of popular support. I'm sure the more partisan issues will crop up down the line. But this is a very promising start.

politics, midtopia

Lame ducks all around

The lame-duck Congress has convened for the post-election session, where it will try to get some business done before the Democrats take over the new Congress in January. But the more interesting action turns on who will lead both parties in the new Congress.

The lame-duck President, meanwhile, has sent that Congress a wish list that would seem to contradict his calls for bipartisan consensus, inasmuch as they represent an effort to force through controversial measures before the Democrats take over.

The president's top priorities are a measure to legalize his once-secret warrantless eavesdropping program, the extension of his tax cuts and Senate confirmation of John Bolton to be United Nations ambassador and, the least controversial item, Senate backing of Robert Gates to succeed embattled Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

His chances of success are slim to none, unless outgoing Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist changes some ground rules to allow simple majority votes in situations that currently require more than that. Even that would be chancy, and it would probably be foolish for Republicans to try it in the face of voter anger. Whether you think Democrats earned a mandate or not on Nov. 7, trying to push something through now because you don't think it would pass in the newly elected Congress would go very badly for the GOP if they have misread the public mood.

But it's rather telling that Bush says one thing when he's vulnerable, and another when he holds the power. One would have thought that Bush would have refrained from the attempt simply to avoid poisoning relations with the Congress he'll have to deal with for the last two years of his term. Apparently not.

Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. As outgoing GOP Senator Lincoln Chafee recounts, the last time the electorate was closely divided, the Bush administration didn't exactly reach across the divide.

Back in December 2000, after one of the closest elections in our nation’s history, Vice President-elect Dick Cheney was the guest at a weekly lunch meeting of a small group of centrist Republicans. Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and I were honored to have the opportunity to visit with him on the eve of a session of Congress in which, because of Republican defeats, the Senate would be evenly divided at 50-50.

As we sat in Senator Specter’s cozy hideaway office and discussed the coming session, I was startled to hear the vice president dismiss suggestions of compromise and instead emphasize an aggressively partisan agenda that included significant tax cuts, the abandonment of international agreements and a muscular, unilateral foreign policy.

I was incredulous. Instead of a new atmosphere of cooperation and civility which, after all, had been the promise of the Bush-Cheney campaign, we seemed ready to return to the poisonous partisanship that marked the Republican-Congress — Clinton White House years.

Of course, bipartisanship is a two-way street, and it remains to be seen how Democrats will handle their end of the bargain. For now, they're saying all the right things. And other prominent Democrats, like Leon Panetta, are going beyond pleasantries.

The legislative work can begin on areas where there is likely consensus: immigration reform, lobbying and ethics reform, and education with the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind.

If that works, Congress and the administration can move on to negotiate tougher issues like establishing long-term budget discipline, expanding energy alternatives, fixing the prescription drug benefit and increasing the minimum wage.

And, finally, on the war in Iraq, despite the bitter differences, both the Democrats and the president face the same brutal reality. We need a new strategy to stabilize Iraq so that our troops can begin to come home without leaving a disaster behind. The president took an important step by replacing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld with Robert Gates. The Iraq Study Group led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, of which I am a member, will soon make its recommendations, which we hope will provide the beginning of a unified strategy.

Panetta makes an important argument: that the Baker Report will be a starting point, not an ending point. And it remains to be seen whether Bush can participate constructively in the winding down of his Iraq adventure, and whether Democrats can rein in their more leftist members to arrive at a resolution that addresses U.S. national interests. That means getting out of Iraq sooner rather than later so we can refocus attention on actual terrorists -- but not so fast that we jeopardize our interests, or fail to fulfill our ethical obligation to the Iraqi people.

The fate of both parties in 2008 rest on how they rise to this challenge.

politics, midtopia

Meanwhile, over at the RNC....

Republicans are asking defeated Maryland senatorial candidate Michael Steele to replace outgoing RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman.

He'd be a good choice: a popular, smart moderate from a blue state who, by virtue of his skin color, would lend built-in credibility to Republican efforts to continue Mehlman's strategy of reaching out to blacks. And it would give him a high-profile role in the party, exactly what I said was needed a few days ago.

Apparently Karl Rove would prefer he accept an Cabinet post instead. So Steele lands on his feet no matter what. And good for him.

RNC, Mehlman, Steele, politics, midtopia

Howard Dean: Fool or genius?

It depends who you ask.

Some disgruntled Democrats want to replace him with Harold Ford, arguing that Dean did poorly at fundraising, and that his "50 state" strategy cost them several additional seats.

Elsewhere, though, he's being hailed as a genius. Not only did the Democrats not need his help to win, but his efforts to build a truly national grassroots operation paid dividends in several close races, as well as forcing Republicans to defend seats they might not have otherwise.

Me, I think the detractors need to get some perspective. The lackadaisical fundraising is a legitimate gripe. But Dean is right that the party needs to rebuild nationally, and not simply write off large swathes of the country as GOP strongholds. And in hindsight he was right to remain focused on that, instead of throwing all his resources into a mid-term election push that turned out not to need his help.

Dean now has a running start and two years to build a fully functional network for the 2008 presidential elections, with the fundraising and policy help of a Democratic Congress. That's a huge thing. Dean was right; now Democrats would be smart to leave the man alone to do his job.

DNC, Howard Dean, politics, midtopia

Gerrymandering killed the GOP

Because they overreached, diluting their strength in key districts in an attempt to maximize the number of GOP-leaning districts.

In Florida, meanwhile, state lawmakers had shifted some Republican voters from the secure district of former Rep. Mark Foley in an attempt to shore up the re-election chances of Rep. Clay Shaw without risking the Foley seat. Instead, Democrats took both. In Texas, former Majority Leader Tom DeLay's decision to transfer thousands of stalwart Republican voters from his district in 2004 to boost a neighboring seat heightened the burden on the write-in candidate trying to hold Mr. DeLay's seat. She lost it.

"The trade-off in redistricting is between safety and maximizing the numbers," says Alan I. Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory University in Atlanta. "You can't do both,"

The article discusses how union strategists and MoveOn realized what the GOP did not, and began targeting districts that had been weakened by the gerrymandering. On Election Day, Democrats took many of them.

I despise gerrymandering, of course, so this story serves as both poetic justice and a warning. If Democrats control the state legislatures in 2010, they'll be tempted to gerrymander to their own benefit. While I hope that objective boundary-drawing criteria are in place by then, I also hope that Democrats learn from the GOP's mistakes and are wary about pushing their advantage to the limit. Not only is democracy hurt by such shenanigans -- they could end up shooting themselves in the foot.

gerrymandering, politics, midtopia

Party switchers?

There's a lot of talk about whether Joe Lieberman or Bernie Sanders will switch from independent to one of the other parties. Sanders could turn Democrat; Lieberman could go either way, though he has repeatedly said he'll caucus with the Democrats.

But what about moderate Republicans?

After the 1994 takeover by Republicans, two Senate Democrats jumped ship: Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Richard Shelby. So there's a precedent for it.

And Lincoln Chafee is openly talking about it. He's irrelevant until he gets elected again, but some of his comments are illuminating.

When asked whether he felt that his loss may have helped the country by switching control of power in Congress, he replied: "To be honest, yes."

"The people have spoken all across America. They want the Democrats and Republicans to work together," Chafee added. "I think the president now is going to have to talk to the Democrats. I think that's going to be good for America."

A lifelong Republican who succeeded his father, the late John Chafee, in the U.S. Senate, Chafee said he waged a lonely campaign to try to bring the party to the middle. He described attending weekly Thursday lunches with fellow Republican senators and standing up to argue his point of view, often alone.

"There were times walking into my caucus room where it wasn't fun," he said.

Chafee said he stuck with the party in large part because it allowed him to bring federal dollars home to Rhode Island.

So: Any bets on who among the Republicans might switch?

My money is on the two Maine senators, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. Both moderates, both from heavily Democratic states.

Any other contenders?

politics, midtopia

Blue sky thoughts

It's late, so I may not be thinking too clearly, but I've been kicking around a couple of admittedly radical ideas over the last few weeks, and this seems like a good time to throw them out there and see what people think.

They're half-formed, at best. So be gentle.

Minimum wage: Most discussions of minimum wage divide over the economic effects (more money to the poor vs. fewer jobs) or portray it as a social justice issue. But what about the minimum wage's effect on illegal immigration? Wouldn't raising the minimum wage help in that regard?

This idea is based on the assumption that while a lot of employers might be willing to overlook spotty documentation, far fewer are willing to actually violate wage laws. So if they have to pay more, the incentive to hire illegals go down -- since lower wages is one of the primary incentives for doing so.

Given a choice between paying illegal aliens $7 an hour and paying Americans $7 an hour, most employers will choose the latter.

This wouldn't affect employers who are already breaking wage laws by paying illegal immigrants under the table, but it might have an effect on employers who knowingly hire aliens with forged documentation.

Campaign contributions: What if you allowed donations, but they had to be anonymous? Say, earmarked for particular candidates but sent to a central clearinghouse that made monthly or quarterly payments to candidates?

That way politicians wouldn't know who was donating to them, or how much. Sure, contributors could say "I gave this much", but there'd be no way to prove it because the clearinghouse would send an aggregate check, not break it down by donation.

On the downside, the rest of us wouldn't know who was contributing, like we do now, and the Center for Responsive Politics would go out of business. But if nobody knows, I'm fine with that. And it might reduce the overall amount of such donations, thus reducing the influence of money on elections and policy.

Fire away!

campaign finance, minimum wage, immigration, politics, midtopia

150,000 Iraqi dead?

That's what Iraq's health minister says. It's three times most other estimates, but about a quarter of the Lancet estimate that was in the news last month.

The 150,000 figure is something of a back-of-the-envelope calculation:

Health Minister Ali al-Shemari gave his new estimate of 150,000 to reporters during a visit to Vienna, Austria. He later told The Associated Press that he based the figure on an estimate of 100 bodies per day brought to morgues and hospitals — though such a calculation would come out closer to 130,000 in total.

If that figure is close to accurate -- and frankly, it seems reasonable -- then it proves one tragic fact: our meddling in Iraq is killing people at a faster rate than Saddam was.

This is doubly sad, because the only unequivocally good thing to come out of our invasion is that Saddam will soon be dancing at the end of a rope. And now it appears that our intervention is doing more harm to Iraq than he did. Iraqis may one day wax nostalgic about the relatively peaceful days under Saddam. Wouldn't it be ironic if we ended up polishing Saddam's hagiography.

Iraq, politics, midtopia

The casualties mount

With George Allen and Conrad Burns conceding defeat, the Democrats now control both houses of Congress.

The repercussions of their victory are still being felt. Besides Donald Rumsfeld resigning, Ken Mehlman is quitting as head of the Republican National Committee and it looks like John Bolton will fail to get confirmed as UN Ambassador.

Taking the Senate completely changes the balance of power. Controlling the House would have been big in its own right, allowing Democrats to advance their own proposals and quash Republican efforts. Owning the Senate magnifies that power, of course, allowing them to actually pass legislation and send it to the president's desk. But the real biggie is a power unique to the Senate: confirmation of presidential appointees. With Democrats taking the Senate, Bolton was finished. And now the Dems will be able to put pressure on Bush's judicial nominees for the final two years of his term.

What will it mean? That depends on how Bush, Republicans and Democrats proceed. In a world of rational actors they would horse-trade, swapping confirmation of Bush judges for passage of Dem legislation, while Bush wields a veto threat to mold that legislation as well as win passage of bills sought by the Republican minority.

In a world of egos, stubbornness, partisanship and payback, the Dems will marginalize the GOP the way the GOP marginalized Dems, the GOP minority will pull out all the obstructionist stops they used to decry and Bush and the Democrats will take turns quashing each others' initiatives.

The problem here is trust. Bush has a history of talking a good game about "uniting" and "reaching out", but his definition of that has generally been "let's talk nice while doing things my way." His effort to get Bolton confirmed before the Dems take over in January doesn't bode well in that regard. Both parties have a history of obstructing as the minority and of keeping the other party down as a majority. The Republican legislative "majority of the majority" rule -- only bills supported by a majority of Republicans would be sent to the floor for a vote -- was a particularly obnoxious version of the latter, essentially allowing a fourth of Congress to control the legislative agenda.

The Democrats, for their part, must be sorely tempted to launch dozens of investigations, reject all Bush nominees, gut every Republican legislative achievement and otherwise seek revenge.

I suspect it is only a matter of time before Congress and the White House are yelling at each other rather than speaking, and I cynically await the first Republican filibuster and the first expression of Democratic outrage at such obstructionist tactics.

But for now, let's give them the benefit of the doubt. In the "control both houses" link above, Democratic leaders appear to be sober and realistic about the situation.

"Our joy today will vanish if we can't produce for the American people," said Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the chairman of the Senate Democratic campaign committee....

In reaching out to Republicans, though, Democrats pointedly noted that Republicans had not shown them the same consideration.

"They've set a bad example in not working with us," Reid said. "We're not following that example."

These are good rhetorical starts. And they've got two months to work out some deals before the new session begins. An early test for Bush will be the judicial nominees he chooses to send over; will he send moderates, or will he continue to nominate hard-line conservatives? An early test for Democrats will be the rules and legislative priorities they establish. Will they include Republicans, or marginalize them?

Time will tell.

politics, midtopia

Roll call

Just noting some races that were in the news for various reasons:

Democrats took every scandal seat: those once held by Tom DeLay, Mark Foley and Bob Ney. They'll probably have to work hard to keep those seats, but for now they've got them.

GOP Rep. Don Sherwood of Pennsylvania, he of the "I didn't strangle my mistress" defense, lost. So did GOP Rep. Curt Weldon, who was the subject of a corruption probe. Rep. John Sweeney (R-N.Y.) lost after reports that he roughed up his wife in 2005.

Partisan secretaries of state fared poorly, too. Katherine Harris got obliterated in her quest for a Senate seat in Florida, and Ken Blackwell never came close to getting the keys to the Ohio governor's mansion.

On the other side, both Dennis Hastert and Tom Reynolds survived their links to the Foley affair.

Update: Hastert may have kept his seat, but he won't try to keep his leadership post.

politics, midtopia

Rumsfeld steps down?

Just heard a report that Rumsfeld will be stepping down; Bush to speak later today.

More as it develops.

Update: Bush has confirmed it in a White House press conference. He has named ex-CIA chief Robert Gates as his new nominee, continuing his practice of hiring former Reagan and Bush the Elder hands. But Gates is a member of James Baker's Iraq Study Group, so that's a good sign.

The timing on this is a little strange, because Bush and the GOP would have been better off politically to announce this before the election. And just a week ago, Bush said he wanted Rumsfeld to stay until the end of his presidency.

Bush was asked about that at the press conference, and basically said "I lied to you a week ago because I wasn't ready to announce it."


Rumsfeld, politics, midtopia

Time for IRV

So Democrats take the Minnesota House and sweep all statewide offices.... except for governor. Why?

Because a strong independent candidate siphoned off DFL-leaning voters, costing Mike Hatch a victory.

Good.

I was actually hoping for Hatch to win in a squeaker, because having a DFL governor would have made things easier. But maybe his loss will drive the point home more strongly.

And that point is that the DFL-controlled legislature needs to have instant-runoff voting in place by the 2008 elections.

Why? Well, first off, it's simply the right thing to do. It lets people vote for the candidate they really like without having to worry that doing so will cause their least-favorite candidate to get elected.

But that hasn't persuaded either major party in the past. Fine principles usually come in second to practical politics.

So now's the time to make the case on political grounds.

In Minnesota, serious independent candidates tend to dilute DFL voting strength more than Republican voting strength. That simple fact is proved by the last two elections, in which both Tim Penny and Peter Hutchinson weakened the DFL candidate enough for Pawlenty to win both times with a plurality rather than a majority.

Had IRV been in place, Pawlenty would have lost both times. Simple as that. Had IRV been in place this year, Hatch would have won.

I plan to write the DFL leadership, as well as my own representatives, and make that case. As long as legislative leaders resist IRV, they will continue to see their gubernatorial candidates lose. I will appeal to them to adopt IRV both because it is the right thing to do, and because it provides a tactical advantage to Democrats.

If enough people do that, in 2008 we could have election results that truly reflect the will of the people.

Write your state representative today.

instant-runoff voting, Minnesota, politics, midtopia

In Minnesota, a nearly clean sweep

A pretty good night at Midtopia's campaign headquarters. All of my choices (see sidebar) won except for the governor's race, where Hutchinson split the ticket and let Pawlenty squeak through to re-election.

Tim Walz beating Gil Gutknecht was an intriguing surprise. I didn't mind Gutknecht so much, other than his longstanding support for Bush's Iraq policy. Count him a victim of the national mood.

And the 6th District is sending a nutjob to Congress. That's their right, and it's not like Wetterling was the strongest candidate in the world. But one usually hopes that sanity prevails over looniness. Oh, well; it's only for two years. Maybe Mark Kennedy will reclaim his seat in 2008, or Elwyn Tinklenberg will finally get his chance. Heck, maybe Bachmann will prove to be a reasonable Rep.... sure, and maybe pigs will fly out of my nose.

My overall approach worked, though. Pawlenty keeps his office, but every other statewide office went Democrat, and the Dems took control of the state House while holding on to the state Senate. So Pawlenty will have to do a lot of dealing if he wants to get anything done.

Congratulations to Klobuchar, Ramstad, Bonoff and Benson.

Minnesota, politics, midtopia

Dems fulfill predictions

An amazing night. I was up until about midnight watching the results, but didn't have the time for liveblogging.

First, give credit to the pundits: the general consensus of predictions (including my own) were right on. The Democrats picked up 28 seats in the House and 4 seats in the Senate (Pennsylvania, Missouri, Rhode Island, Ohio), with 2 Senate seats (Virginia and Montana) hanging in the balance. We may yet see a Democratic majority there.

The Dems also picked up 6 governorships, and now control a majority of those, as well as making serious gains at the statehouse level.

Some random thoughts:

Party makeup: On the one hand, I'm disappointed that the Democratic gains took an especially heavy toll on moderate Republicans. That's to be expected, since swing districts are pretty much by definition going to favor moderates in both parties. Santorum was a good scalp, and several Bush lapdogs went down. But Chafee, Steele and the like are the kind of people I'd like to see remain relevant in Republican circles.

Still, consider the long-term trends. In order to win, Democrats veered toward the center, electing conservative and moderate candidates in several key races. And the darling of the Netroots, Ned Lamont, got stuffed by the far more conservative Joe Lieberman. Nancy Pelosi may be liberal, but she will have to lead a caucus that will be decidedly more centrist than the one it replaces.

And as the Democrats grow more moderate, moderate elected Republicans are growing scarce. That will give conservatives and the religious right even more of a hold on the GOP. Unless they find a way to counter that, Republicans may find themselves ideologically purer but increasingly out of power.

Abortion and stem cells: The South Dakota abortion ban was shot down, showing that draconian restrictions on abortion still lack popular support in most of the country. California rejected a waiting period and parental notification for minors. The Missouri stem cell amendment looks like it will barely pass, which would seem to throw doubt on the theory that the amendment helped McCaskill. Arguably it helped Talent, as pro-life forces turned out to defeat the amendment.

Gay marriage: Arizona shot down a bill that would have outlawed civil unions as well as gay marriage. Five states passed bans on both. Two states outlawed gay marriage but not civil unions, though one of those states -- Colorado -- rejected a separate bill that would have legalized civil unions.

Taxes: South Dakota rejected a proposal to limit property tax increases, a Midwest version of California's Proposition 13 -- which has played havoc with that state's finances. South Carolina approved one. Three states rejected a Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, which would have put strict limits on tax increases. No broad restrictions on taxation power passed.

Eminent domain: Restriction on use of this power, a reaction to the Supreme Court's ruling in the New London case, passed in 9 states, while being rejected in two.

Minimum wage: Proposals to raise the minimum wage and index it to inflation passed in all six states where it was on the ballot.

Other initiatives: Voters in South Dakota soundly rejected proposals to strip judges of legal immunity on their rulings. Arizona approved making English the state's official language.

The picture that emerges is one of a centrist electorate that opposes gay marriage (and appears willing to ban civil unions if the two issues are chained together), but generally supports legal abortion and opposes handcuffing government's ability to raise revenue. Voters also support the social safety net, as reflected in the minimum wage proposals. The one place they want to rein in government power is eminent domain.

The administration: Bush, Rove and Ken Mehlman were required to be cheerleaders leading up to this election, but it's worth pointing out just how wrong they were about how things would turn out. Bush stumping in conservative areas and defending his decisions in Iraq probably hurt more than they helped. It may have helped fire up Bush's base, but that base is at 34 percent and falling, and meanwhile coverage of his speeches helped remind people not only of their opposition to the war, but Bush's refusal to concede mistakes or deal with the reality on the ground.

The big question now is how Bush will deal with a Democratic Congress -- and how that Congress will deal with him. Expect a smattering of investigations, as well as bills restricting the President's ability to authorize torture and eavesdropping. But also expect Bush to use his veto pen more. It comes down to whether Bush can get past his innate stubborness and actually compromise, and whether Democrats can get past thoughts of revenge and actually govern. The next few months should be telling, as they'll set the tone for the next two years.

Independents: We've now got two in the Senate: Lieberman and Bernie Sanders. Both have said they'll caucus with the Democrats, but it will be interesting to see what price they demand -- especially if control of the Senate hinges on their decision. Lieberman will probably get the committee assignments he would have gotten had he run and won as a Democrat; but Sanders will have some interesting negotiations. And the GOP may try to bribe Lieberman if the stakes are high enough. Lieberman has said he won't switch caucuses, but we'll see.

Fraud: While there were hiccups, the voting overall appeared to go smoothly. In part that's because most of the margins were beyond dispute. But I haven't seen any credible claims of widespread fraud -- and to their credit, Republicans don't seem to be raising that particular chant.

Turnout: Turnout seemed to be pretty high across the country, with some areas experiencing percentages normally reserved for presidential elections. This is excellent for all sorts of reasons, but the main one is that it dilutes the influence of money, partisanship and the parties' get-out-the-vote operations. That turnout may end up explaining why the GOP's acknowledged advantage in such operations failed to move the needle yesterday -- enough people were mad enough and motivated enough that it simply swamped such partisan efforts.

Money: A lot of money went into this election. According to Opensecrets.org, Congressional candidates raised a total of more than $1.2 billion and spent about $1 billion of that. A lot more money went into state-level races.

But all that money appeared to have a limited effect this year. In Michigan, the GOP candidate for governor spent $35 million of his own money -- and lost. In Rhode Island, the GOP candidate for Senate spent $7 million out of his own pocket -- and lost. In Congressional races, Republicans outspent Democrats by $27 million -- and lost.

The moral: Money helps. But in a race where the issues are stark and well-known, its influence is limited.

Attack ads: I'm not about to suggest this is a trend, but another thing I noticed about this election is the relative ineffectiveness of the usual negative polemics. Republicans trotted out their usual screeds about "liberal" and "tax and spend" and "negotiates with terrorists", but this time around those ads just seemed shrill and weak, not devastating. The optimist in me would like to think that this year was a wake-up call for voters, who have started to see such tactics for what they are -- long on innuendo, short on substance and accuracy, and doing more damage to the speaker than the target.

That's it for now. More later as I get time.

politics, midtopia

Election Day misbehavior

A certain amount of this happens in every campaign. This post will be updated through the day to list this election cycle's shenanigans. I've already commented on the irregularities in Virginia. So without further ado:

In New Jersey: Vandals chained shut the doors of Republican Senate candidate Tom Kean's campaign headquarters, and broke keys off in the locks.

In Colorado Springs: The headquarters of Democratic House candidate Jay Fawcett was sprayed with chemicals that smell like skunk, making it difficult for workers to do their jobs.

In Kentucky: A poll worker was arrested after choking a voter and throwing him out of the polling place. The two had argued over a judicial election.

In Ohio: Someone broke into a polling station in Columbus overnight, causing it to open late. In southeast Ohio, callers have been falsely telling voters that their precinct had changed. There have also been problems and confusion around the new voter ID requirement.

All in all though, things seem to be going smoothly. Voting is a massive process, involving tens of thousands of precincts and millions of voters. While I'll probably have an impressive list in this post by the end of the evening, nothing so far indicates a major problem.

politics, midtopia