Centerfield

We predicted it at SF half an hour before the announcement. It was, to be sure, pretty predictable.

Especially if I predicted it at 4am this morning in my election night closer.

And we all know how bright I am.

Mathew,

I don't think that's a very fair characterization of Gates. His experience is a lot more deserving of memory than just what his role was in Iran-Contra. Throughout his career he was precisely the kind of action-oriented intelligence operative that we could have used in a War on Terror, and if he crossed boundaries, then that's definitely something we need to consider... but I don't think he should be excluded simply on that superficial basis alone. Most importantly, what he would bring to the organization now needs to be first and foremost on our minds.

It may not play well politically, but not everything we're going to have do to defeat the radical Islamists will play well politically.

Max, at 4am I was sleeping, having already called Montana for Tester and Missouri for McCaskill--who was trailing by 6 when I called it. (I know Missouri.)

I'm saying even money that Silvestre Reyes gets House Intel Chair, Bobby, over both Hastings and Harman. Any thoughts?

Tully,

I don't really know the Democratic Steering Committee's process for choosing their committee chairs. I'm inclined to agree with you, but not knowing the rules, I don't really know how they dole out their committees and if it takes an Act of God to break seniority or what not.

Can someone give me some insight on the timing of this deal? How does immediatly after the election make sense at all from a political standpoint?

I just don't follow the logic but then maybe I'm just dense.

Scotch,

By doing it now, it'll look better than doing it after the investigations start. Quitting then would look much more like abandoning his post under heavy fire, and more suggestive of some kind of guilt. Investigations of DOD will have less political fallout if the prime target leaves 2 months before they begin. It helps with the "why bother investigating ancient history" argument.

By the way, Mathew, I disagree with your characterization of the 1994 Republicans. They did win on more of a positive vision. As Mike Pence, probably the next House minority leader, said today, the problem with the GOP this year is that our House leadership abandoned the principles which won us power in 1994.

Dissatisfaction with the President and with the GOP leadership in the House were responsible for the loss. If GOP approval ratings in either area had been better, I think the GOP would have still won. But the double whammy combination is what cost us the election. I'm analyzing some of the exit polling data over at Stubborn Facts.

Bobby,

How it plays politically matters, and I am not sold on the fact that the only qualified person for the job happens to be a Bush family friend, who yes, was involved in Iran Contra. The reality is in Washington D.C. that people are often defined by single events right or wrong, and although Gates may be a good man overall, I still think this nomination is politically stupid.

Pat,

I agree the Republicans won on a more positive vision, but that positive vision wasn't the reason they won, rather it was Bill Clinton. I like Pence, and will be supporting his candidacy along with Shadegg for Whip although I fine them both to be wicked scary on social issues. You hit the nail on the head in your piece at SF about what the Republicans need to do in the next Congress, and Pence as well as Shadegg are the best of the bunch to get it done IMHO. Boehner, Cantor, and Blunt equal more of the same.

Tully,
At 4am I should have been asleep too, but by the time Colbert came on, I knew the Democrats had taken the Senate. Testor wasn't that close. I was worried about Webb puling it out.

As for your other predictions, I can't compete. I am surprised McCain has come out swinging. Allen should have eaten less pork. I would have brought back Cohen for Sec of Def but again, what do I know? Gates is probably better than Tenent.

Murtha is really bugging me while all those defense contractor line up. Biden has a shot at showing how bright he is or isn't. Who will investigat Reid? And I woudn't bet that Lieberman and a few others will give a free pass to bad security ideas. Can you imagine what Congress will look like during the next Israeli conflict?

I was a bit startled by Bush's remarks.

On the other hand, I notice that Kosworld is demanding Pelosi impeach Bush and cut funding for Iraq. They are already blasting McCain. Of course, the world is taking this as a repudiation on our "war on terror". Glad to see Democrats sharing the hot seat......

Mathew, I'm with you on Shadegg and Pence et al. But I still can't go with you on the reasons for the 1994 victory. Clinton had only been president for 2 years at that point. The country didn't yet have the full love/hate relationship they came to have. Even at the end, Clinton kept high approval ratings, blzarrely enough.

No one factor explains a big election like that. There was a large cultural shift to the Republicans in the country, as well as a long-term shift in how the Democrats defined themselves as a party. Those were factors. Another big factor was Jim Wright's book deal and the House banking and post office scandals.

So you're right that it can't all be pinned on the positive message of the Contract with America, but it also can't all be blamed on negativity, either. Which factors were most dominant? Impossible to say for certain.

I kind of like the pick. I've read Gates' book, and it seemed well-thought-out to me. In the late 80s, he had a partisan look to him just because the way he was presented by the Reagan Administration and Democrats, and his high seniority in a obviously stupidly and partisanly run organization (in hindsight, William Colby made Porter Goss look competent).

But, at least in his book, I thought he did a good job of separating known-with-evidence from fiction from unknown in a pretty nonpartisan way, and understanding the power of evidence.

I do notice that no Aggies have been allowed to be stupid enough to let big bonfire piles fall on them on his watch. Which as a Longhorn fan, on the other side of an ancient rivalry from the Aggies, I'd say is quite a trick ;-).

But then, I liked Rumsfeld. The only charge I've seen that might have merit is failing to recruit and use other A-class talent, which is of course a big problem for running a huge organization with so many policy and technology angles as the Pentagon. And failing to encourage the most important skill for 2000-2006, peacekeeping/occupation, but then, alot of his accusers fall in the that same boat.

Boy 1994 seems like ages ago. What I remember is being surprised that the C w/ A worked, but acknowledging that the GOP had presented something in the way of a vision, at least compared to the democrats, who seemed cocksure of their continued dominance and content to do little beyond pooh-poohing the C w/ A.

Not sure how much it's worth comparing 1994 to these results. It is what it is, a show of dissatisfaction with the GOP, largely attributable to widespread dissatisfaction with the Iraq war.

I am hoping that the immediate future yields more investigation into what the public is dissatisfied about. I am not yet convinced that the majority of the dissatisfied people are just tired and willing to move on and bail, regardless of the consequences. I lay the blame for these results right at Bush's feet. He should have tried harder to engage the public in the importance of the effort and the myriad reasons why we were undertaking this policy. He highlighted the easy scare ("we can't afford to wait for the final proof, which may come in the form of a mushroom cloud') to garner public approval. The way things subsequently unfolded left a lot of people asking WTF. I could be wrong, but I'd like to think the people would have responded better if Bush had challenged us instead of scaring/coddling us.

I'm praying that the need to actually govern will help democrats rise to the occasion, and that together Bush and a moderate adult bipartisan coalition will challenge us to give democratizing Iraq some time. We broke it, so we bought it, and I despise the thought of leaving the people we've made promises to left in the lurch. The thought of it reminds me of the painful scene in Hotel Rwanda where Nick Nolte has to tell Don Cheadle at, so sorry, but higher-ups have NOT miraculously grown a pair, and so anyone not on the next bus is just SOL.

Threats of impending investigations disturb me. I'd like to BEG the demcrats not to put unreasonable, vengeful children in charge of such enterprises.I am REALLY not up for a witch hunt, poring over the minutiae of past decisions and policies. If people have, say, unquestionably broken the law, they deserve to be held accountable. But I don''t believe that we as a nation can afford to indulge in a lengthy process of second-guessingeach and every Iraq-war-related of the past few years. Not if its for the sake of assigning blame.The timing could not be poorer.

Oh, and I'll be taking congratulations both sarcastic and sincere on living in the most blue of the blue states. [Do you spell that bluest or blue-est?] The rout of the GOP here in Massachusetts could not have been decisive. At this point, we'll need to start an exchange program with South Dakota pretty soon before we're unable to even communicate.

Nicely stated Brian

At this point, we'll need to start an exchange program with South Dakota pretty soon before we're unable to even communicate.

I'm willing to offer translations services at a very reasonable hourly rate, plus expenses. :-)

Bobby, "seniority" is a custom and not a rule. But it's not neccesarily seniority in Congress, it can also be seniority/time on that committee. Harman wins "on committee" and Hastings wins "in Congress". Both entered Congress the same year (93) but Harman took a term off to run for gov in CA. Reyes entered in 96. On credentials he's by far the best pick.

Mathew,

See, that's kind of my point. First we have the Presidential process, where good men and women are eliminated because they're not "electable" and we're usually forced to accept someone with an oversized ego (which I understand is just about required to have the audacity to run for most powerful person in the world). I have a problem with this-- I'd rather have the best and most qualified person as my President even if he/she is not tall, thin, good-looking, and charismatic, or has something that makes them "unelectable."

Now we're going to eliminate Cabinet Secretaries because they're not "politically acceptable." Not "best qualified" or "worst qualified"-- or even "qualified" versus "unqualified"-- not even whether or not we think they would perform well and do better than their peers... But whether or not they are politically palatable. That shouldn't even be part of the debate-- we should be arguing about their qualifications and what they're going to do for their respective organization.

Personally, I want the best and most qualified person to lead our departments, especially the ones that are important to me (philosophically and personally). If we can't get the "best and most qualified" (and individual mileage will differ on whom we each think that is), then I want "very qualified" and "very likely to perform well and contribute"-- not whether or not the person has something in their background that, while troublesome to some people, is actually indicative of the kind of operations they experienced that we need more of in the first place-- not Iran-contra per se, mind you, but the covert operations and dynamic intelligence operations that you only read about Jack Ryan doing. Put another way, given what he's done in several of the books, Jack Ryan wouldn't be allowed to be DCI, DNI, or SECDEF by the "politically acceptable" standard... And yet if you wouldn't rush to nominate him for any of those three positions you've either never read the books or clearly odn't understand what kind of people we need to be leading our fight against the Islamists.

...outstanding point Bobby. Poring over minutiae and "enjoying" full disclosure on all our nominees dumbs down the talent pool.

Not just cabinet nominees, it does it to our politicians as well. The best person for the job may not be remotely likable, and the most ikable and electable person may not be remotely qualified.

I don't know. This doesn't sound very convincing given the two years since its publication . Zeb isn't my favorite thinker. What do you all think? Sensible? Such a position would seriously reverse administration position. Yes?

I thought the Democrats these last three weeks were taking a harder line on Iran.....

Except for the recommendation that includes asking Iran for assurances that it is not supporting resistance to the governments of Afghanistan and (particularly) Iraq, the recommendation in the Executive Summary seem pretty reasonable.

I'm not at all sure that Gates will have the clout to move the administration that he is joining in that direction. But in the unlikely event that he manages to do so, the national interest would definitely be advanced.

The Europeans offered Iran real imcentives with the US actually considering giving them a reactor. The proposal requires Iran to stop enrichment which they refuse. It says little about weapon exports and imports, funding terror and recently a major military newspaper in Iran encouraged Hizb"Allah to fire missiles at Tel Aviv "to show every Israeli is vunerable". It hardly addresses the declaration to wipe Israel off the map. In what real way does this report suggest a new and pragmatic path?

Maybe we should send Bush to visit Iran and meet the Mullahs, personally.

I would add more than verifiable assurances for just Afghanistan and Iraq. Argentina has a warrent out for the former Iranian president in the terrorist death of 85 worshipper. Today India interdicted a cargo ship from North Korea bound for Iran. The scope must be a bit bigger, yes?

Stratfor points out that Gates was a member of the Iraq Study Group, and so it's important to note that while we don't know what alternatives they are going to endorse, it would be rather difficult for the President not to implement and to ignore those recommendations if he had just made one of their members his Secretary of Defense.