It's A Sweep: Democrats Take The Senate
Rumsfeld Ousted As Secretary of Defense
by Glynn Wilson
The sweep is final and complete. The Democrats will now control a majority in both the Senate and the House for the first time since 1994 as the two close races still in play on Wednesday in Montana and Virginia ended up going to the Democrats, according to the Associated Press and other news organizations.
Jim Webb's close victory over incumbent Sen. George Allen gave Democrats their 51st seat in the Senate, an astonishing turnabout at the hands of voters unhappy with Republican scandal and unabated violence in Iraq, according to the AP, which called the race first this evening.
The Senate teetered at 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans and one independent for most of Wednesday, with Virginia hanging in the balance. Webb's victory ended Republican hopes of eking out a 50-50 split, with Vice President Dick Cheney wielding tie-breaking authority.
The AP contacted election officials in all 134 localities where voting occurred, obtaining updated numbers Wednesday. About half the localities said they had completed their postelection canvassing and nearly all had counted outstanding absentees. Most were expected to be finished by Friday.
The new AP count showed Webb with 1,172,538 votes and Allen with 1,165,302, a difference of 7,236.
An adviser to Allen, speaking on condition of anonymity because his boss had not formally decided to end the campaign, told the AP the senator wanted to wait until most of canvassing was completed before announcing his decision, possibly as early as Thursday evening. The adviser said that Allen was disinclined to request a recount if the final vote spread was similar to that of election night.
The victory puts Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., in line to become Senate majority leader.
Combined with the major victory in taking over the House of Representatives on Tuesday by re-capturing at least 27 seats and leading in four other races, Election Day 2006 was a repudiation of the failed policies of President George W. Bush.
In an acknowledgement of that defeat and the failed war strategy in Iraq, the president handed the Democrats the head of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in a last gasp attempt to appear willing to acknowledge mistakes and avoid total lame duck status by appearing to be willing to work in a non-partison fashion for his last two years in office.
Rumsfeld resigned with a short statement in which he quoted the great British war strategist of World War II Winston Churchill.
To paraphrase Richard Nixon, let's make one thing perfectly clear. Mr. Rumsfeld, you are no Winston Churchill.
Bush replaced Rumsfeld with Robert Gates, who may come under close scrutiny during his Senate confirmation hearings, which will now be led by Democrats, for his controversial role in the Iran-Contra scandal when he worked for then-Vice President George H.W. Bush in the late 1980s.
Comments
Glynn,
Are you familiar with the battle of Gallipoli? For your edificaton: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli 180,000 Allied casualties so that the West could retake a bastion of ancient democratic Greece. This was Churchill's strategy, and it failed catastrophically. You're right, Rumsfeld isn't a strategist on Churchill's level. As a strategist, Churchill was a bloody handed bumbler who killed indiscriminately in pursuit of romantic ideals.
Churchill is justifiably famous as a statesman. As a strategist, he was a butcher of his own people.
Perhaps you should stay away from comments regarding military history.
Posted by: Patrick S Lasswell | November 9, 2006 11:15 AM
Oh, and by the way, did you know that Winston Churchill was also responsible for the messy amalgam of Kurdistan, Shia, and Sunni interests now known as Iraq? http://www.kurdistanica.com/english/history/histroy-frame.html He repudiated the Treaty of Sevres that recognized Kurdistan and installed Feisel as King over Iraq.
You are correct in pointing out that Rumsfeld has done nowhere near as much lasting damage to the Middle-East as Churchill. Was that what you wer trying to accomplish?
Posted by: Patrick S Lasswell | November 9, 2006 11:34 AM
Ha! Ha! LOL. I wasn't commenting on anything about military history, just injecting a funny line into the discussion regarding Rummy.
People (including historians) have a high regard for Churchill for his role in holding the British together when they were under assault by the Nazis during World War II and probably for getting the U.S. involved in stopping Japanese hegemony and German fascism from taking over the world in the 1940s.
Whether deserved or not, he has an international reputation from that era.
It just struck us as funny that Rumsfeld has such a high regard for himself and his role in history that upon his ignominious departure he would compare himself to Churchill.
That would sort of be like George W. Bush comparing himself to Jesus.
These fuckers are a joke and the world already knows it. Tuesday's election showed that finally, enough Americans woke up and are beginning to realize it as well.
Posted by: fast2write![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.locustfork.net/blog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
November 9, 2006 12:10 PM
First, Nixon isn't the source of the comparison dismissal you are thinking of, Lloyd Bentsen is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Bentsen
He was responsible for one of the most memorable moments of the campaign during his televised debate with Republican Vice Presidential nominee Dan Quayle. Quayle noted that he had as much political experience as John F. Kennedy when Kennedy ran for office. Bentsen fired back with the retort "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."[2]
You obviously don't know Winston Churchill, you didn't serve with Winston Churchill, and you aren't qualified to defend the legacy of Winston Churchill. He was not Christ, he was a magnificent and deeply flawed man. Your analysis is the joke, and it is a shame that you don't get it.
Posted by: Patrick S Lasswell | November 9, 2006 11:58 PM
Man, you are the one who doesn't get it. No one cares about your analysis. Your people are losers. I was paraphrasing Nixon, who always liked to say something like (that's what a paraphrase is, not an exact quote) ...let's make one thing perfectly clear: I am not a crook...
And I remember well what Bentsen said, since I was watching it live. I don't have to use wikipedia for everything, since I was there, so to speak.
And I don't really give a shit about Churchill. I do know that Rumsfeld was forced to resign because he was in on convincing Bush to go to war in iraq BEFORE 9/11. Even CNN and MSNBC have reported that in the past couple of days, in case your attention is only focused on Fox News. And it has become clear even to Republicans that this war is a failure based on a massive intel failure, which has seriously damaged the interests and reputation of the U.S. - hopefully not permanently, but perhaps...
Focus on the present, man, and you will be a happier person. As my friends in Seattle like to say these days, "HAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN!"
Rummy fucked up, taking us all along with him. And the fact remains. He's no Churchill...
As for your assessment about his damage to the Middle East and the slaughter of his own people, you might want to check the headlines today.
The Locust Fork World News
Here, I'll help you find the right story:
Iraqi Official: 150,000 Civilians Dead
Posted by: fast2write![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.locustfork.net/blog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
November 10, 2006 12:12 AM