is the title of this New York Times column in which he opines on the possible impact of Tuesday's electoral results.
It is, as is often the case with Blow, well worth reading.
He talks about how the Republicans, fueled by dark money, some of which (Koch Brothers) he identifies, were able to take advantage of a favorable landscape and Democrats back on their heels while avoiding the kinds of mistakes of the previous two cycles in order to succeed. They fielded better candidates, avoided gaffes and stayed on script.
Candidates adopted a faux rustic aura, like a strip mall Olive Garden. The campaigns were savvy in their simplicity: anti-Obama, anti-Washington. Republicans damaged the Obama brand as best they could, then attached all Democratic candidates to it.
And, contrary to what some here may think, they continued to play the anti-Obamacare card. Blow quotes a paragraph from a
Weekly Standard article that notes nearly 12,000 anti-Obamcare ads in Senate races in just the week of Oct 13-19,
"...more than they ran on jobs/unemployment, taxes, and social issues combined. It’s also more than they ran on jobs/unemployment and immigration combined."
But he also lambastes those Democrats who tried to separate themselves from Obama (are you listening Mark Pryor and Alison Lundergard Grimes?). It's not just that they did not tout Democratic successes,
Many were so busy running away from an association with the president that they never got around to running on Democratic principle.
This was a huge mistake. When someone from your party occupies the White House, you are shackled to them no matter what you say. Better to move together than chop off your own leg trying to free yourself.
That is the looking back part of the column.
As to looking forward? I invite you to continue below the fold for more of Blow and a bit of teacherken as well.
BGlow frames this part of his article between the notion of a President wanting to build his legacy, which normally means passing legislation, attempting to find common ground with Republicans who face their internal civil war, and who have to decide if what they want is vengeance or whether having now become the Washington against which they ran might actually want to attempt to govern. Lest some wonder whether Obama might be too anxious to make deals for the sake of making deals, Blow writes of yesterday's press conference
However, during a news conference on Wednesday, the president was not contrite or cowed. He presented as a man hopeful for a little compromise but bracing for a lot of fighting. He didn’t tuck his tail as much as bare his fangs.
He suggests this might actually buck up those on the progressive side of the party who have been disappointed by campaign promises not yet kept. If the traffic on several of the lists in which I participate can be believed, he has an opportunity to reconnect with Progressives, but they are angry at the administration, at the House and Senate campaign committees, and especially at Harry Reid and some of the old bulls who refused to act forcefully when Republicans became totally obstructionist and do away with the filibuster. Here I note that during the summer of 2009 I regularly heard from House Members I know how angry they were at Reid for not actually forcing the Republicans in the Senate to act on their threats to filibuster - it not only would have been great theater benefiting our side, it would have made clear to the American people that the reason things were not getting done even though the Democrats had been given majorities in both chambers was the obstructionism of Republicans, against the will of the American people. Most Americans do not understand the need for 60 votes to accomplish most things. The Democrats could have made that case, but did not. Nor did they fix the filibuster after the 2012 elections when the Senate could then have passed legislation and force it to the House to demonstrate the obstructionism there.
l.ow reminds us that the Republicans now are Washington:
They have to pass actual legislation and not just demonstration bills that the president will be sure to veto.
He notes that Obama has so far only vetoed 2 bills, the fewest since Garfield (who was shot only a few months into his term) and suggests he might be anxious to exercise his veto pen. Having listened to and read the transcript of the press conference, I think that might well be a correct assessment.
Blow ends with the following two brief paragraphs:
The American people, for their part, are eager to have their faith reaffirmed that Washington is not irreparably broken and that our politicians aren’t implacably insolent.
There is only a small window for politicians in Washington to provide some proof.
implacably insolent - here I would have to say those words should not be applied universally to the elected on Capitol Hill. While there are a few on our side of the aisle (here the first names that come to mind are Steve Israel in his running of the DCCC and Chuck Schumer because of his being in thrall to Wall Street and the financial sector) by and large those words are far more applicable to the Republicans: Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Mitch McConnell, those House members who have demanded vote after vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and then of course some of the nut cases just elected.
There is a question of whether this country is still governable.
There were glimpses of what could have been in some few electoral successes . In Arkansas, a state which rejected both an incumbent Democratic Governor and Democratic Senator, nevertheless comfortably passed raising the minimum wage. In Richmond CA the locals beat back a $3 million effort by Chevron to take over their government for the corporation's financial advantage. Washington State passed gun control. In DC and elsewhere we saw an advancement of marijuana legalization. California rolled back the racist war on drugs.
It is not that our Progressive values do not have appeal. It is that cowardly Democrats have refused to run forcefully on those values.
While I applaud Obama's willingness to act in a way that reminds us he still has more than 2 years left in his term, I am still not convinced he is prepared to make the case to the American people for the Progressive vision which had it been advocated forcefully in the past few cycles might have made a huge difference to how effectively our government works for we the people of the United States.
Read the Blow column.
I will be interested in your thoughts.
And thanks for reading what I had to say.
Peace?