Nothing Aside

Election 2005: A Recap

Yesterday was election day in various parts of the country.  Here in Virginia there was the hotly contested race for governor between former state Attorney General Jerry Kilgore (R) and Lt. Governor Tim Kaine (D).  Here are the final results:

• Kaine (D) - 52%
• Kilgore (R) - 46%
• Potts (I) - 2%

In the Lt. Governor race, Republican Bill Bolling squeaked by Democrat Leslie Byrne:

• Bolling (R) - 51%
• Byrne (D) - 49%

The third state-wide race was for Attorney General and as of this morning, it was still up in the air:

• McDonnell (R) - 50%
• Deeds (D) - 50%

Across the country Democrats did well for themselves.  Senator Jon Corzine won the New Jersey governor race with ease.  He will now have to appoint his own replacement in the U.S. Senate - a crucial decision for Democrats, who face an uphill battle in that 2006 senate race.  The likely Republican opponent will be Tom Kean Jr., son of the former governor and chairman of the 9/11 commission.  But here are yesterday's results:

• Corzine (D) - 53%
• Forrester (R) - 44%

Elsewhere, efforts to reform the redistricting process in Ohio failed (sigh).  In Maine a gay marriage ban actually failed.  I think that is the first state to reject such a ban.  Meanwhile, in Texas voters added yet another amendment to their constitution: one that bans gay marriage, but which may also ban heterosexual marriage as well (oops).  In the New York mayoral race, Bloomberg (R) cruised to an easy victory.  That was to be expected.

What really troubles me is what happened in California.  Arnold had put four ballot initiatives up for consideration and all of them were rejected.  Democrats in the state are cheering, and the lefties at Daily Kos are blindly following that lead, but this seems totally misguided.  Let's look at what the propositions intend to do:

• Proposition 74 would increase from two years to five years the amount of time it would take before public school teachers could get tenure.  This seems entirely reasonable to me.  Of course this was opposed by the teachers' union and Democrats put partisanship before principle and campaigned to reject this completely reasonable proposal.
• Proposition 75 would require public sector unions to get the consent of their members before making contributions to political campaigns.  Again, this seems only reasonable.  Union leaders shouldn't be deciding the politics of their membership without getting approval of those members.  Again, Democrats, and the teachers' union opposed this and it failed by a similar 48%-51% margin.  They argued that this was nothing but a move by Republicans to limit the power of Democrats since most public sector unions side with Democrats.  Well duh.  But why does that ipso facto make it a bad thing?
• Proposition 76 would have imposed spending limits that would have handcuffed the state in any attempts to correct its out of shape budget problems.  This was rejected, as it should have been.
• Proposition 77 dealt with redistricting.  Instead of having California's congressional districts drawn by the hyper-partisan state legislature, districts would be created by a panel of retired judges who would be free of partisan influences and, presumably, would be able to draw districts that resulted in fair and competitive congressional races.  Democrats opposed this proposition because they felt that it would reduce their power and they could potentially lose some seats.  Well of course it would result in some lost seats.  But it should also result in some new seats as well and if a party is confident in its electoral program it shouldn't fear competitive elections.  One of the biggest problems in American politics today is the number of congressional elections that are won by 30%+.  That is simply ridiculous.  Every state should take note of the success and stronger democracy that has arisen in Iowa and Arizona, where just such a non-partisan commission is responsible for slicing up the state.  This is good for democracy and it is should have been good for California.

All of these propositions failed.  That is a disgrace.  Democrats should not be cheering just because they made Arnold look weaker by rejecting all his ideas.  They should have looked at the merits of the issues before them and thought about how it would effect democracy, not just their own narrow interests.  Consider this another reason why I am wary of the power of unions in the Democratic Party.

Swagger, Probes and Indictments, Oh My!

Man, the Republican Party really knows how to pick'em. 

This week (month?) has been really bad for the GOP as the President has lost his swagger because of a natural disaster made worse by his administration's incompetent leadership, the Senate Majority Leader is "Bracing for Dual Probes" (who writes these headlines?) into his suspicious insider-trading-looking dealings, and the House Majority Leader has been indicted by a Texas grand jury.  For those of you keeping score at home, those are the top three officials in our elected branches of government.

If the Democrats can't turn this into a majority in both houses of Congress in 2006, nothing can.  I've never bought into the notion that the Democrats are "without ideas," since that's not really their first responsibility when they only have 44 Senate seats and a sizable deficit in the House.  The first objective is opposition - and with this administration and this Frist Senate and DeLay House there has been more than enough to oppose.  In fact I'm impressed Reid and Pelosi have kept up as well as they have.  But put all that aside.  Even if they are "without ideas," they will be running against, quite literally, crooks and scoundrels.  Talk about a gift.

Congressional Ethics: Ney

The 18th district of Ohio, where Kenyon is located, should take another look at Rep. Bob Ney before they vote for him again.  It looks like he might be Robin to Tom DeLay's Batman.

Dean for DNC Chairman

I have always been somewhat disgusted by the role of the various party chairmen.  Honestly, was there anything more slimy and more likely to turn someone off of politics forever than a debate between RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie and DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe?  It was like seeing the ugly interworkings of party politics.  No one wants to see two greasy partisans going at it with no concern about what goes on beyond the Washington beltway. 

The RNC has picked Ken Melman for the top job after he was the successful campaign manager for Bush's reelection campaign.  Great.  Whatever. 

The DNC, however, is locked in one of the lamest "chairman elections" ever.  I don't have a lot of knowledge about the various candidates, but perhaps that is the point.  I'm sure Simon Rosenberg or some of these other fundraising powerhouses would be just fine, but right now the Democratic Party needs a voice who can be the face of a movement and a political force in himself.  No more party bureaucratic insiders. 

As such, I support Howard Dean for the DNC chairmanship.  He is exactly what the Democratic Party needs as its leader.  Do not get me wrong, this is no endorsement of Dean as a presidential candidate.  I never got on that bandwagon, but that is not what the DNC chairmanship is about.  I never supported Dean for president because ultimately he would need to win the center.  While I thought he had the credentials for doing so, he and his rabid supporters wanted to remain on the left.  With that approach, he would not have done well as a general election presidential candidate. 

But that's not what this is about.  As far as being the head of the Democratic Party, Dean is perfect.  He would provide a great voice where the party needs a strong amplifier.  Let's hope those who make the ultimate decision on who is the next chair see Dean's value.