Some responses to the election
By Heraclitus
A brief round-up of what folks in the blogosphere are saying. Of course, the most common theme is how to interpret this election in terms of national political trends. And, of course, we all hope that this means that the days Rovian politics are over (but why am I not ready to believe that?). Andrew Sullivan has some good reflections on the failure of the Southern strategy. Also: Sullivan reads various right-wing nutjobs so you don't have to. One of the odder consequences of this election has been the rush to find Little Ricky Santorum a plush job in the federal government. So, at National Review Online, for instance, they want Santorum to be the new Secretary of Defense. Sounds crazy, I know, but Bush has shown he doesn't require competence in that job. Hugh Hewitt, meanwhile -- and you know this is going to be good -- blames John McCain for the Republicans' defeat (see! I told you!), and adds, "Senator Santorum is now available for a seat on the SCOTUS should one become available." As Sullivan succintly puts it, "clinical."
Amanda Marcotte has an interesting post about how the election results may be a sign of an emerging progressive consensus in the country, or at least a sign that the old-fashioned fear- and hate-mongering the GOP has been running on for so long just isn't going to work anymore. I certainly hope she's right, but I remain pessimistic (as is my wont).
Captain Ed has a series of thoughtful and serious posts on the election and its meaning.
Oliver Kamm has a post on how he hopes the Democrats will take national security seriously, and is consequently pleased that Lamont was defeated. He singles out Hillary Clinton as a model Democrat in this regard. I've noticed that people who support, or had supported, the Republicans on national security grounds often speak of Clinton as the best Democrat on national security/foreign policy, and indeed one of the best Senators period on those subjects. In other words, she may be a good centrist candidate on national security measures. We'll see.
Of course there's plenty more out there; feel free to add you own links in the comments.
A brief round-up of what folks in the blogosphere are saying. Of course, the most common theme is how to interpret this election in terms of national political trends. And, of course, we all hope that this means that the days Rovian politics are over (but why am I not ready to believe that?). Andrew Sullivan has some good reflections on the failure of the Southern strategy. Also: Sullivan reads various right-wing nutjobs so you don't have to. One of the odder consequences of this election has been the rush to find Little Ricky Santorum a plush job in the federal government. So, at National Review Online, for instance, they want Santorum to be the new Secretary of Defense. Sounds crazy, I know, but Bush has shown he doesn't require competence in that job. Hugh Hewitt, meanwhile -- and you know this is going to be good -- blames John McCain for the Republicans' defeat (see! I told you!), and adds, "Senator Santorum is now available for a seat on the SCOTUS should one become available." As Sullivan succintly puts it, "clinical."
Amanda Marcotte has an interesting post about how the election results may be a sign of an emerging progressive consensus in the country, or at least a sign that the old-fashioned fear- and hate-mongering the GOP has been running on for so long just isn't going to work anymore. I certainly hope she's right, but I remain pessimistic (as is my wont).
Captain Ed has a series of thoughtful and serious posts on the election and its meaning.
Oliver Kamm has a post on how he hopes the Democrats will take national security seriously, and is consequently pleased that Lamont was defeated. He singles out Hillary Clinton as a model Democrat in this regard. I've noticed that people who support, or had supported, the Republicans on national security grounds often speak of Clinton as the best Democrat on national security/foreign policy, and indeed one of the best Senators period on those subjects. In other words, she may be a good centrist candidate on national security measures. We'll see.
Of course there's plenty more out there; feel free to add you own links in the comments.
posted by . at
3:03 PM
2 Comments:
My Republican mom's take on it was the same as mine---people are learning to cut the racism out.
By
Amanda Marcotte, at 7:43 AM
Wow. I can't believe Amanda Marcotte commented on one of my posts. I have nothing else to say.
By
., at 6:59 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home