Conservatives watched as the liberal Democrat establishment seemed to be in complete disarray.   There was so much posturing, back-biting, and the party's platform seemed scatter-shot in so many different directions nothing could possibly ever be accomplished.   Nobody seemed capable of fully understanding the results of the election, the will of the electorate was completely misunderstood.   Was this in the wake of the Democrats' loss in 2000 or 2004?   No it was after the victory of 2006!

First, there was Nancy Pelosi claiming liberals would not pull the troops out of Iraq.   Rather, Democrats would seek "a new direction."   What direction?   Nobody was saying, or, more precisely, everybody was.   The trouble is that everyone had a very different idea about this "new direction."   Murtha wanted "redeployment" to far off Asian bases - in other words a full retreat.   But many Democrats, both liberal and conservative saw the idiocy of anything short of victory.   And they weren't about to hand Congress right back to the Republicans by proving their accusations correct.

Harry Reid declared the Senate would re-engage in its "oversight responsibilities" or, in other words, begin investigating everything the executive branch has done, is doing, or might do.   Obviously this would have the deleterious result of completely handcuffing the President and the entire executive branch, including, notably, homeland defense.   This would open the door to all sorts of departures of people in key positions, breakdowns in security protocols, and result ultimately in fertile ground for another attack.   Reid can say what he wants but the most important investigation in his future has to do with Abramoff.

There was the battle between ethically challenged candidates for majority leader.   The battle got so severe that it teetered on the verge of civil war.   Neither of the candidates seemed capable of doing less than reinforcing the Washington culture of corruption.

Then there were the larger party issues.   This came to light when Clinton's man, James Carville, said, "Howard Dean should be fired."   But how can they fire the guy right after the party won control of Congress?   It seems like a more difficult fight than Iraq.   Even a victory by Carville would seem to be Pyrrhic.

The day after the elections I wondered if Republicans would show themselves as bad at losing as the Democrats were in 2000 and 2004.   To my surprise, the Republicans acted in a dignified manner.   But the Democrats showed themselves to be worse at winning than they were at losing.   Guess who pays the price for this?