But as I sauntered up the street to the subway this morning, with the Times' forty-point headline rattling around in my cranium like an overlarge iron clapper in a fragile old bell, I found myself tranquil in spirit, and even mildly disposed to hope that the Democrats get the Senate too.
I'll now have two years, at least, to vituperate the donks for the misfeasance, malfeasance, and -- especially -- nonfeasance that I confidently predict they will deliver. And by the time '08 rolls around, they'll have as much egg on their long-eared, bucktoothed faces as the Republicans. They'll be as bogged in some war or wars, they'll be as servile, or more servile, to the Israel lobby, they'll be up to their elbows in the lifeblood of the working man and woman. They'll keep Star Wars going, and the police state -- in fact, dollar to a doughnut they expand the latter. They'll have the FBI combing through your hair for evidence of intellectual-property violations. It goes without saying that they won't have delivered a blessed thing that all those people who voted for them were hoping for, and they will have made themselves active collaborators -- active because now they have legislative majorities -- in further, yet-undreamed-of horrors. Oh, I can't wait.
In fact -- call me a conspiracy theorist, if you like -- I bet this thought must have occurred to at least some Republican strategists. Better to take a little hit now, and give the Dems two years to discredit themselves before '08. I don't think they threw the fight, but I bet they're not entirely disconsolate with the outcome.
Comments (4)
Why disappointed? I figure it'll be timorous fecklessness for the next two years, and the Kosniki will have a lot of explaining to do when the long-hoped-for insurrection fails to come to pass, and we're still in Iraq, etc.
I don't think this will destroy the Dems, but disaffection can only grow now that they have both houses of Congress and will, of course, fail to deliver.
Anyone care to take bets on when Pelosi says it's time for healing? I put it at fifteen minutes before the end of the 100 hours that's being bruited about.
Posted by et alia | November 9, 2006 12:37 AM
Posted on November 9, 2006 00:37
Bush could have replaced Rumsfield before the election which would have guaranteed a Republican victory.
The only conclusion one can draw is that they wanted to replace a group of complete "neoconservative-tainted" idiots with a better class of pro-war legislators. The empire is in such dire straits that bipartisanship is required.
The Neoconservatives have been tossed out and an alliance has been formed between the Republican Realists and the Democratic Internationalists. The Cheney VP office is an historical anamoly and he can easily be turned into John Nance Garner's bucket of warm piss.
It is not for nothing that Bill has become one of GHW Bush's "sons". I think this speech by Hillary before the CFR neatly sums it all up.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HK02Aa01.html
Posted by Jesus Reyes | November 9, 2006 3:34 AM
Posted on November 9, 2006 03:34
I'd have prefered the debacle so we could at least skip the months and years of Kosniki excuse-making for their do-nothing democrat masters. Watching these servile functionaries quibble and squirm ain't gonna be pretty.
Posted by AlanSmithee | November 9, 2006 9:36 AM
Posted on November 9, 2006 09:36
Mr. Smithee: "Watching these servile functionaries quibble and squirm ain't gonna be pretty."
You're a better man than I am, sir. I'm going to love every minute of it, and I look forward to the inevitable defections from the Dems. They built up expectations they can't possibly fulfill, and the sense of disappointment, especially among the newly politicized, will be keen.
While it's hardly a random sample, some friends of mine who consider themselves Dem faithful and couldn't understand why I wouldn't go in for lesser-evilism are already expressing disgust at how little they think the victory will count for.
Posted by et alia | November 10, 2006 1:32 PM
Posted on November 10, 2006 13:32