So Election 2010 is upon us. Have you made your Wish List? Well, here's mine.
Upon reading this, most of my Blue friends will think I've gone Red, and many of my Red friends will think that I'm still Blue at heart. Being that I am actually now a marbled blend of indigo and magenta, this is probably a good thing.
Everything that follows is written with the assumption that the GOP will indeed take the House of Representatives tomorrow... and I will be glad for this, and for a number of reasons -- most of which I'll get into later. For starters though: as an Ohioan, I'm glad that we'll have a Speaker Boehner, if for nothing else than it's been 57 years since an Ohioan has sat in one of the big three positions of power (President, Speaker, or Senate Majority Leader), with the last being Senate Majority Leader Robert Taft in 1953. Ohio has been too important in electoral politics for us not to have someone representin'.
Now, given that I'm confident that the GOP will take the House, it is my hope that the Democrats will maintain control of the Senate... but by only the narrowest margin possible. In other words, I hope that the GOP picks up nine seats tomorrow... no more, no less. Why? Here's a breakdown.
1. I've decided that I'm now big on divided government and on checks and balances. Sure, there have been plenty of occasions when the president is of one party and both houses of Congress are of another. However, it's a rare thing with the Houses themselves are of different parties. We had a brief stint of this after the Jeffords switch in 2001, but then 9/11 came along and drowned out whatever might have been the significance of such a Congress. Before that, you have to go back to the early-to-mid 1980's, when we had a Republican Senate and a Democratic House. Being that I was 9-13 years old at the time, I didn't really get the chance to observe those dynamics at work.
2. Even more specifically, the single rarest combination of House, Senate, and Presidency is to have a Democratic Senate, a Republican House, and a Democratic President. Such a combination hasn't occurred since WWI. Since then, every other possible combination has manifested itself and with greater frequency. Again, I'd like to be able to observe how such a rare combination would play itself out.
3. Is it possible that a Democratic Majority Leader Schumer and a Republican Speaker Boehner could forge moderate, centrist, and populist legislation? For which more than a meager 50.01% of the populace could be enthusiastically supportive? I know it might be naïve of me, but I'm willing to give that one a try.
You'll notice I write "Majority Leader Schumer". This brings us to the next item on my Wish List: Reid Vs. Angle. First, let me be clear: I think the voters of Nevada have the most painful of election options this year. Let me add: I do not like Sharron Angle, and I do not hate Harry Reid. That said, I really want new leadership for the Democrats in the Senate. As nice a guy as Harry Reid might seem to be, I can't help but think of him as the Jimmy Carter of the Senate. As it is: being that I want the Dems to maintain control of the Senate, and being that I want new leadership there, I'm left with only one option: to hope for a Sharron Angle victory tomorrow, as much as that one pains me. (Let me also add that, if Reid were to announce today that he'd like to stay in the Senate, but not as leader, I could very easily change my stance on this particular item and wish him a victory tomorrow.)
Conventional wisdom says that either Schumer or Durbin will replace Reid as the Democratic Leader in the Senate. Further evidence implies that Durbin would be Obama's choice. Given that I think the Senate Democrats will want some increased autonomy from the Executive, my own wisdom tells me that Schumer would be elected as their next Leader. I like Schumer's wit and his presence -- two things that have been lacking from Senate leadership for some time.
4. Why nine seat and not eight or ten? Because as much as I want divided government between the houses, I also want divided government within them as well. Should there be 49 Democratic Senators, 48 Republican Senators, and 3 Independent Senators, so much could be in play.
You'll notice I write "3 Independent Senators." This brings be to the next item on my list: Murkowski vs. Miller. Normally, I might not have had a dog in this fight. However, as it is, I think that the two biggest diseases in electoral politics today are (1) gerrymandering and (2) the party system itself. Wherever and whenever possible, I want to see candidates win without having the backing of the GOP or the DNC. A victory for Murkowski would be a victory for independents, moderates, and centrists everywhere. For this reason, I would have also loved to see a Crist victory in Florida, but I have given up on the possibility for that one. (Like him or not, Rubio just seems to be one of those candidates that can't be denied.) Anyhow, back to the independents... yes, I'd love to see a Murkowski-Lieberman-Sanders caucus in the Senate next year, so I'll be pulling for Lisa tomorrow.
So, in summary, I want:
1. The GOP to take the House (for checks and balances, and an Ohioan Speaker).
2. The Democrats to hold the Senate (but by only one Senator).
3. For Sharron Angle to defeat Harry Reid (for Senate Leadership reasons only).
4. For Lisa Murkowski to defeat Joe Miller (and the party system).
There you have it folks. Something to alienate and/or endear anyone and everyone! All the same, here's to a more Indigo & Magenta country come 2011.
1. Extend tax cuts for all for period of 2 years (later she stated they should be extended FOREVER)
2. Reset spending levels to 2008
3. Freeze federal hiring
When Rendell took her to task for her knowing that the above three would not reduce a 4 Trillion $ Deficit, this is when she got mad and said Bush Tax Cuts should be extended FOREVER.
So much for Republicans working for reasonable and responsible solutions! The next 2 years is going to be just like the last 2 years. The only difference is that the Repubs are going to have to explain why they got nothing done in the last 4 years. Such a sad state of affairs for our country and it's citizens!
John Boehner does not deserve the seat. He has spent more time campaigning in other states. Something is very wrong with a system that allows this.
We will have two years of complete gridlock and Boehner WILL prove he's just as bad or worse than Taft was. Nothing personal but I truly hope you don't get your wish. It would be the second worst scenario that could happen.
It's unfortunate that the real story hasn't been told appropriately. The real narrative still includes the utter demonization of our President from the moment he announced his candidacy. I still talk to voters who think he's a Muslim, for God's sake. The screamers at the table will win the day...and then we'll wonder why.
Righties have already decided that they will begin advertising for the 2012 election the day after these elections. The unlimited corporate influx will be well-spent before any kind of disclosure rule is in place.
It is a sad day in America.
I want Crist, Chaffe to lose.
I want meek, Caprio and Sestak to win.
I want Reid to lose.
I want the Greens to get on the map too, not just the tea Party - and the 2 party system to end.
I want the arrogant ones to get their comeuppance.
I want women to become a force onto themselves - I want sexism punished - whether it's Brown or Paul.
I want to have candidates to vote FOR, not just against.