But he is not 'The Will of The People' kinda guy, he's a 'God's Will' kinda guy. He might take this as a Temptation; you know: worship the devil in return for the kingdom.

No, he won't give in to Temptation, he is not that kinda guy.

I dunno, remember, he's the "decider". He decided to
wreck Texas, and he did. He decided to wreck the U.S., and the crazed dems brought him up a bit short, but he damned nearly got away with it. He long ago decided he didn't give didlysquat about world opinion, and with a miffed and glowering and wounded Rove sulking in a corner, I wouldn't bet the farm. Think I'll re-read "The Road."

Oh dear -- speared by Chomsky's sword!

Well, we'll see how the Dems stack up for the rest of Bush's term. But tell me, Tiny Dancer, what difference do the Dems bring to the Gazans, presently being slaughtered in a cage? And as for Iraq . . .

It won't do much for the Palestinians. Most Democrats vie with Republicans for the position of being top Israel-booster and Palestinian-basher.

It may not do much for the Iraqis either.

But Jon was talking about Iran. If he's right, there's one country at least we won't get the chance to bomb or destroy or turn into Lebanon on steroids, or whatever.

The choice of Robert Gates as Rumsfeld's replacement is a good sign.

Lordy, lordy, don't no one remember Gates at the Central American gates on the other side of the canal?

At least his role in the Iran contra scandal means that he is probably ready to talk to (rather than bomb) Iran!

The clearest memory of my high school years was watching the iran contra hearings on TV - it was incredible. I especially remember Inouye castigating North for attacking people's patriotism. It's amazing how quickly the media forgets stuff, because to me the 80s are as clear as day. (Unfortunately.)

And though I am about as extreme as Dennis and J. Alva (yes I voted for Nader in 2000, but I was voting from a safe state - and I also voted for him in 1996) I can't help being happy today. Getting rid of the R majority in both houses is not a silver bullet by itself, but it is a very fine start in the right direction. And i do think these results will have a definite dampening effect on the pro-bombing-iran crazies.

Jonathan,

This is really more depressing than it looks.

Your entire argument is built on the idea that the American People aren't that pack of baying wolves that the world has been led to believe they are: a people too feisty and too fearsome to take shit from anybody. Just a flock of sheep of varying intelligence.

If the Republicans who managed to hold on to their seats start pressuring Bush to back off the crazy war stuff it might have the opposite effect. If one accepts the official version of Bush's bio, he sees himself as a man of destiny. He sacrificed a generation of Iraqis and wrote it off as a mere 'comma'. Which is more important to him -- the Republican party's recovering by 2008, or his messianic vision for the Middle East? Stay tuned.

will it stop Bush from attacking Iran before he leaves office?

I can see Bush attacking Iran after he leaves office. Frontal assault with a rifle and a loincloth, maybe.

Anna, I'm happy too, albeit for reasons that are reprehensible, and where not reprehensible, petty.

The Bushist wingnuts will shift from paranoid triumphalist victimology to paranoid anguished victimology. While not an improvement, the suffering they inflict on themselves as they flail about in paroxysms of stupidity and self-importance is good for them. Maybe a few will do the right thing and kill themselves. I doubt it, but hope springs eternal!

Democrats now have a reason to ignore me. Those constipated accusations of being "objectively pro-wingnut" will be shelved for at least a year and a half.

Sadly, as the occupation drags on and the urge to evince a more muscular liberalism takes hold, they'll wind up to the right of the Bushists on domestic police laws, to fulfill their destiny as the Mommy Dearest party.

What do you think? I'm prepared to be argued out of this. But if I'm right and the election prevents an attack on Iran—or has merely lowered the chances of one—or even just lowered the chances of our NUKING Iran—it had a big significance we shouldn't sneer at.

How would we know if one was prevented? The likelihood of one, however, is addressable. I don't think the US elite as an entity has worked up the nerve to go expediently nucular (again). I'm sure many would like to, fantasize about it and so forth, but it would give their factional enemies and domestic rivals too much political ammunition. People like to think Happy Thoughts in between bouts of their apocalyptic brown person panics. Nukes make people sad, with the possible exception of the warbloggers. Consumer relations people need a big media spectacular to make hellfire palatable, or a serious threat to the barcalounger lifestyle. The Big Fear gambit for popular consumption is getting played out. Only the Fox News cretins still get that old timey, comforting panic now.

That being said, I think there's a really good chance of the Beltway getting behind the Bomb in a big way if the neoliberal fantasy becomes obviously and imminently untenable. The American way of life is not negotiable. Nukes would articulate that very well, but people will want to feel good about it. Barack Obama could pull it off. It would be audacious and hopeful.

My first reaction (and the one I immediately posted) was "cripes, not another Iran-Contra guy," but then I read that Gates is on James Baker's "how do we get out of Iraq" commission, so perhaps it's good news on that front. But if we get out of Iraq in one piece we'll have all those people with guns and bombs just sitting around doing nothing, and a committed Christian like Bush knows that idle hands are the devil's whatever.

So I'm thinking this is a good news/bad news scenario, with the bad news being that he'll attack Iran and the good news being that we won't lose most of our army in Iraq because they won't be there anymore.

Hey, it wasn't such a tiny percentage of people - there is the number of people voting, and then the prison of the oligarchic system we retain, sentimentally, from the eighteenth century to make sure that the frothing demos doesn't start knocking down the doors of the country club. Or at least Brad DeLong's numbers are pretty startling.

"One way to look at last night's election is that the implicit gerrymandering of the Senate and the in-the-tank-ness of the press corps are keeping people from realizing how big the blowout was. Consider this: it looks like 32,100 thousand Americans voted for Democratic Senatorial candidates, and only 24,524 thousand Americans voted for Republican Senatorial candidates. That's a 13.4% margin of Democratic victory."

These are his numbers:

Dem/ Rep:
21,428,784 18,665,605 02
37,645,909 38,164,089 04
32,100,000 24,524,000 06

I think that is pretty big.

Certainly, there was never any realistic chance he would attack before the election, as I predicted. Fleet readiness is still in the toilet. No move before the spring, and one suspects the political dynamic will make it moot long before that.

J.Alva, Obama never was one to put his theories into practice. All he wants to do is to be civil, as in nice. That ain't a theory, and it's easy to be a wimp. In England, he would be a perfect Butler, an fully committed Jeeves type.

I'm torn between Democratic optimism and Dennisian realism. In Pennsylvania, where I live, I almost voted for Bob Casey over Rick Santorum, but I couldn't bring myself to push the button for a pro-lifer. Instead I wrote in Betty Friedan and threw my vote away.

Thanks a fuckin' lot, Dennis.