The Terminal Patient

[I'll update this post with accurate quotes and links later.]

I was just listening to All Things Considered on NPR. They were talking about Rumsfeld leaving, along with members of his staff, and the job ahead for the next guy, whose name escapes me.

One interviewee said that "the next guy" dealing with Iraq is like a doctor, and Iraq is a patient. Iraq The Patient is in his 60s and has smoked and drank for many years, and now has lung cancer and heart cancer and says to the doctor, "Help me, do something," when in fact there isn't much any doctor could do in that case.

I'd previously blithely referred to Iraq as "spilled milk" (claiming that once the milk is spilled, who did it and why doesn't matter much and there aren't too many ways of cleaning it up, so differing views on Iraq couldn't actually be that different). I like this guy's assessment too, (the way he phrased it, anyway) and wanted to share it.

I just hope that this doctor can at least make the patient more comfortable while we search for a miracle cure.

Oh, the poor Iraqis... Can you imagine describing the USA as a terminal patient?

A few tidbits from the election

When I was young, we had steaks every Saturday night. Dad would trim his T-bone off the end and would cut that up into bite-sized pieces which he also threw on the grill. These were done long before the steaks, of course, and Dad would call me out to the patio for "Tidbits!" We'd salt them and eat them right off the grill while we waited for the rest of the steaks to cook. They were pretty well done, being so small, but I still always thought they were the best part of Saturday night.

Well, the Democrats are having political steak this week, and while their metaphorical t-bones and strips are well known, let's have some salty, hot tidbits while we're waiting to see what they do with it.

First, Howard Dean is, as Joe Conason put it on Salon, vindicated. He had this crazy idea that instead of running things like they were always done before, he would try a "50-state solution". And it turns out, despite hoots of derision, that he was right. He's not just Rohm Emmanuel's geeky litte brother with Tourette's, he's actually on to something.

Personally, I really, really like the idea of a 50-state solution, because I live in Texas. Now, I love Texas with all my heart like a good cowgirl should, but I usually feel like my vote is a joke. It's not that I don't meet Democrats and other anti-Republicans on a daily basis-- I do, and from all walks of life and age groups-- but let's face facts. My senators are Kay Bailey Even-My-Hair-Is-Afraid-Of-Me Hutchinson and John Shoot-Judges-Until-You-Make-Me-One-Then-Stop Cornyn. They aren't going anywhere by themselves, and neither of them are stupid enough to get caught doing something awful. (Although, a girl can dream...) So, I can vote until I'm blue in the touchscreen finger but it never does any good. I still turn on CNN and there are the Texan Twins of Doom. I do have Lloyd Doggett, a Dem I really like, for House Rep., so the Dems aren't totally comatose in Tejas, but it's close. Sleeping peacefully, shall we say. We could use some help from our coastal-elite brethren.

So bring on your 50-state solution, Dr. Dean! There are Dems wandering the vast wilderness of the fly-over states! We count too!

Interestingly, before I got a chance to post this, I saw a bit on War Room that some, including strategist James Carville, are having a beef with Dean over this, saying that by spreading the love around, he shorted some people in key races. "Some people" in this case is James Ford, Carville's protege of sorts. Yes, yes, Ford was on the cover of Newsweek under the title, "Not your Daddy's Democrats," but I ask you, JC, would you have rather had one cover-boy or the House and Senate? And Ford, while very nice and well-spoken and handsome and black (in Tennessee, mind you), is also against gay marriage and is pro-life, two things that when things settle back down to normal governance put him opposite my views and what I really think the Democratic party should be. I would have liked to see him win, too, but let's not get too greedy.

And that brings me to my next tidbit: what I think the Dems should be. I think that above all, the Democratic party has to stand for one idea: We have to make room for all of us. It's as simple as that. So, you think that if I'm gay, I'm going to hell, and if I get married in the meantime, then the US will go to hell with me? Well, we're here to remind you that not everyone thinks that, and we all have to live here too. We don't all have to be religious, and if we are, we don't have to be Christians, and if we are, we don't have to be evangelical Christians, and if we are, we don't have to be right-wing, and if we are, then there is room for us too, because there is room for everybody. That's what I want. Think a Giant Spaghetti Monster created the world? Excellent, we have room for you too. Think we didn't really go to the moon? Right this way, there's a whole group for you too, have fun! Think you can co-parent with one friend while living with another friend platonically while creating a sort of post-modern nuclear family? The house next door is up for sale, c'mon down, we could be pals. But more importantly, even though our parents think we're nuts and religious zealots would condemn us, there is room for us in the Good Ol' U. S. of A. and we need to defend ourselves against marginalization. Keeping the tent open for all of us and defending the honorable ideals of America including tolerance and freedom I think should be the primary missions of the Democratic party.

Oh, yeah, and while we're on the subject of differing views, let's at least agree that Hard Science, while incomplete and evolving itself, is the empirical study of the facts of nature, and that we must put some faith in it and reveal it, rather than squash reports and studies that conflict with the administration's religious views. Scientific departments of the government were created to establish a groundwork of "known knowns" (oh, I miss him already) for the government, but this administration has used mafioso techniques to squash reports that disagree with the religious views of the base of their party. OK, you're still sure in your heart that the literal interpretation of Genesis is correct? Well, there is a big tent revival down the way, have fun, remember to keep hydrated, but please keep your ideas away from my science, thanks.

My goodness, look at the time. And I haven't even talked about the youth vote turnout or what the agenda of the Dems should be! Tune in for the next installment of Woo-hoo! What Now? , or, as you have lovingly come to know it, Little Miss Patriot. Be good, say your prayers, or don't, and then keep that to yourself.

Allen to concede

CNN is reporting that within the next hour Senator George Allen will officially concede his relection campaign.

OK, everyone, exhale.

There will not be another shoe dropping. It's over.

Democrats now control the House and the Senate. Let's all pray they don't screw it up.

'Bye, Ed

60 Minutes' Ed Bradley has died of lukemia. LMP sends her condolences to friends and family and wishes his spirit a happy journey.

Webb in? and other musings

With a lead of about 7200 votes, Virginia's US Senate candidate Jim Webb has been declared the winner by AP, though CNN isn't touching it until the incumbent George Allen officially concedes or makes a decision to recount.

I'm still in shock. The House, AND the Senate, AND Rummy's on permanent vacation. I was feeling so cynical, so pessimistic, that I wasn't even sure we'd take the House. Of course, I spent a good chunk of election day trapped on I-35, well behind a jack-knifed semi, with a 2 year old in the car who hadn't had lunch, stuck under a Burger King sign. (The kind of stuck where people get out of their cars and start talking to their new neighbors.) So I wasn't feeling too hopeful about anything.

Eventually things started moving again and we finally got home. Is that what is happening to our country too? Lord, I hope so. If you pray, now might be a good time.

Of course, when we talk about "our country" in terms of elections, we're talking about "likely voters". I don't have the exact figures of who did vote, but Texas going in to the election was predicting a 36% turnout.

That means that A MAJORITY OF TEXANS DID NOT EVEN VOTE. I don't have national figures but I can't imagine they are much different.

Look around you. Out of the ten people in your immediate vincinity at the internet cafe or office cubicle farm, only three or four of you voted. If you did, then only 2 or 3 of the folks within earshot did too.

All these polls about "likely voters", but I want to know what unlikely voters think. What about those other 64%?

Pundits like to tell us that "the country" is this or that, we're leaning left, we are mostly churchgoers, we're leaning right, we want to throw the bums out, we think gay marriage and pot should be illegal-- but are we? Do we? Is Texas even really a Red State? What we are told about ourselves is really just what 1/3 of us think and feel. What would happen if the majority of us weighed in?

What would happen if you polled those unlikely voters? Would we find out that most of us aren't churchgoers, we're fine with gay marriage, we don't want legal gambling (I'm just rambling) or that we actually lean way more left (or way more right) than we've been hearing all these years?

Which brings me to another point I've been musing about. What is the role of a candidate (or elected official) in relation to their constituency?

One theory would be that "the elected official is meant to represent the feelings of a majority of the citizens." In other words, we don't have time to make all the decisions, so we pick someone who thinks like us and will say what we would say, and send them to the meetings in our place. Another is, "the elected official should stick by his or her principles, and the citizenry votes whether or not we like those principles and want them to represent us." I feel like we're seeing more and more of this, candidates telling us who we are.

OK, let's take good ol' Anytown, USA. "The Fightin' Anytonians" (as Colbert would say) have a population of 200 people, and everyone knows everyone. The people of Anytown like it quiet, especially at night. Most of them want a noise ordinance in place to keep it quiet. This affects the local nightclub business (that's Ted, owner of "The We Won't Tell Saloon"). An election for Mayor is coming up. A young ambitious recent grad wants to run.

So here's my question. Is he supposed to:

a) go around and find out that most people like it quiet, and he wants to be Mayor, and a Mayor is meant to represent the views of the majority, so he runs on a pro-ordinance platform, or

b) does he look in his own heart and say, "Well, I play guitar in my spare time and I don't like noise ordinances, so I'm going to run as a candidate against it and try to get more people than just Ted to vote for me."

The difference is, in one scenario the citizens are the dog, and in the other they're the leash.

A candidate who tries to accurately reflect his constituency can be accused of pandering. And he might get into trouble if he is asked to decide something that the public hadn't weighed in on. However, it doesn't seem like it's his job to change us. We are who we are, we want what we want-- though that can be affected by our environment, pop culture, the Daily Show, our families, and other people that we respect, like a pastor or Walter Kronkite. We have plenty of people telling us what to think, shouldn't our representative represent us and be a reflection of what we think?

To tie these ideas together, wouldn't it be a good idea for a candidate to find out what the unlikely voters want too, and really get a sense of what the whole district wants and doesn't want (not just 36% of it), and then sell himself as someone who can make these things happen and get a groundswell of previously-unlikely voters? Isn't that his responsibility, to accurately represent us? Or is his responsibility to have certain convictions and convince us that those convictions will steer the district into a healthy situation?

I need more coffee. Weigh in, people, please!

Tester In! Could Dems control Senate?

CNN is calling the Montana Senate race for Dem Jon Tester. We're still waiting (and may for some time) on the race in Virginia between Republican George Allen and Democrat Jim Webb to see if Democrats gain control of the Senate as well. (Webb has apparently called it for himself, but they're still counting. They're still counting in Montana, too, technically, but it is apparently close enough to call.)

If they do, expect the recent smoldering of scandal involving some tedious accounting snafu of Senator Harry Reid to explode into a villagers-with-torches conflagration as pained Republicans seek revenge. Personally, I think that this story is a non-starter, and that if mistakes were made they were just that. Mistakes in accounting can have disastrous consequences (I was once thrown into the role of accountant and made quite a few myself) but they are not necessarily reflective of corruption or evil intent. However, if this means that we have to replace Reid with someone else, I would be OK with that, he's pretty tepid to be the Senate Majority Leader.

Watch for updates on Virginia.

RUMMY OUT

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has stepped down!

Apparently this was in the works for a few days (obviously, because Bush has already secured his replacement in Former CIA chief Robert Gates). I don't know if we can really gloat, but wow. I was expecting to take the House, I was hoping for the Senate, but I was not expecting to topple Rummy in the process. Forget those who say midterms don't mean anything.

Thank you for voting.

Morning Update

Tony Snow's Morning Update:

"President Bush Is 'Looking Forward to Working With the Democrats.'"

heh heh heh

One Word for Today

Vote.

If you don't vote, you can't bitch.

And Lord, do I love bitching.