Also see below:     
For or Against Bush    [

    Message
    By Pascal Rich
    Lib ration

    Tuesday 07 November 2006

    In the United States today, people will be voting for all kinds of offices: a third of US Senators, the whole House of Representatives, shovels full of governors, lines of judges, braces of sheriffs, mayors, prosecutors, fire chiefs.... A single election is missing in this great ballot market: that of the president, screwed into his Oval Office until 2008. Yet, all eyes are turned to him.

    For this election is not like the others. The legislative campaign has not been dominated by "local" subjects, a rarity in American political history. It has even broadly turned around a foreign policy issue, which is even more exceptional: Iraq, this war that now disgusts two Americans out of three. To vote for a Democratic candidate, whomever it may be, is, above all, to take aim at the White House occupant, and to express the exasperation shared by the entire planet. It makes no difference that the Democratic candidates count among their numbers obvious warmongers (like Senator Hillary Clinton). What's important is the message. If the Republicans remain in the majority in Congress, the team in power will not fail to see that as an invitation to continue its disastrous policy for yet many months.

    The stakes on this November 7 are not inconsiderable, therefore, as much for the rest of the world as for the United States. If the Democrats win, certainly it will only be by a very small majority, inadequate to impose a real political inflection. But they will control an unparalleled echo chamber to prepare the next step, the 2008 presidential elections. Their job from now until then will be to find a discourse that goes beyond a simple anti-Bush grumble.

    Go to Original

    For or Against Bush
    Le Monde | Editorial

    Monday 06 November 2006

    At the American president's midterm, the replacement of the entire House of Representatives and a third of the Senate is traditionally the opportunity to measure the popularity of the administration in place. This year, the midterm elections have been transformed into a veritable referendum for or against the policy of George W. Bush. The polls allow predictions of defeat for the Republicans in the House of Representatives and a very close result in the Senate, where the Grand Old Party could lose a majority.

    If the only theme that interested voters were Iraq, the outcome would be clear. Support for the war has melted over the years and Saddam Hussein's death sentence will not be enough to reassure a majority of Americans about "the boys'" security. The Democrats have not presented a very convincing political alternative, but the Republicans - who were the hottest partisans for the intervention - will be the first to pay for this now-unpopular strategy. For the 2004 presidential election, Mr. Bush had convinced a majority that the war could be won if the United States remained firm in its principles. Since then, the situation has only continued to deteriorate.

    In the economic domain, results are uncertain. Growth is running out of steam and the middle class observes that salaries have been flat for six years. Fiscal relief essentially benefited those with the most money, while social inequalities have gotten worse. The budget surplus left by Democrat Bill Clinton has been transformed into a deficit, which has often been the case in the past with Republican administrations, but conservative Americans do not appreciate this financial laxity, linked in general to a central government hypertrophy that they condemn.

    Then there's the theme of values, exploited masterfully by the candidate Bush two years ago. Several scandals in Republican ranks have tarnished the party's image. They could incite Christian fundamentalists, who furnished Mr. Bush with big battalions of voters, to take refuge in abstention. One must, however, remain cautious. Local considerations play an important role when Americans chose representatives and senators. The very active campaign Mr. Bush has conducted the last few days could have convinced those wavering to not refuse him the means to effect his policies for the last two years of his second term. For the president is playing big stakes.

    A reversal of the Congressional majority would not ipso facto entail a change of direction, but it would oblige the White House to take into account the criticisms that the occupation of Iraq and what Mr. Bush calls "the war against terrorism" provoke.