It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Thirty-Seven

"GOP Gains In 2002"

George W. Bush's presidency began with major controversy over the election itself, but as the President approached the midpoint of his term, his approval rating was high. The economy hadn't been great, going back to Clinton's waning days in office, then it was made worse by the 9/11 attacks, but the public didn't hold Bush responsible for the economy, correctly, in my opinion (for that moment). The 9/11 attacks brought about the Bush-coined expression, "the War On Terror."* Tensions with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein also kept Americans focused on a potential war with Iraq.

Going into the 2002 midterm elections, Democrats held a slim 51-49 majority in the Senate (actually one independent caucused with Democrats) and Republicans held a narrow majority in the House of Representatives. Several senate races were very close, and the race in Georgia became especially nasty, as incumbent Democrat Max Cleland, a Vietnam veteran and amputee from that war (Cleland had both legs and one arm amputated) was depicted with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden in an ad run by  Republican challenger Saxby Chambliss and, I believe, the Republican National Committee, which painted Cleland as being soft on terrorism. Even some Republicans complained about the nature of the ad, and after a while it was finally withdrawn. Cleland lost the election.** In the end, Republicans gained two seats in the Senate and eight in the House, therefore giving Republicans control of both houses for the legislative session beginning in January 2003. The results went against historical trends, where the party holding the White House usually loses seats, especially in the House, during midterm elections.

As the campaigns ended, the drumbeats of war were in the air. Next stop, Iraq.

* Not long after the 9/11 attacks, Americans were further traumatized by anthrax-laced letters mailed to various news outlets and two Democratic senators. Several people died and many others were hospitalized due to severe illness and exposure to the bacteria. The letters contained anti-American and anti-Israeli slogans. The timing of the accompanying letters, as well as initial statements by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and others, led many, if not most, Americans to believe the anthrax attacks were connected in some way to al Qaeda. Iraq's Saddam Hussein came onto the radar screen as well, as the possible supplier of the bacteria to al Qaeda. Investigators soon became convinced that the anthrax used in the attacks was unlikely to have come from overseas, but rather came directly from within the U.S., due to the type of anthrax used. Years of investigation have still not conclusively proven that an Army bio tech researcher was responsible, although the FBI reached that conclusion, and the man apparently committed suicide in 2008. There have been numerous theories about who was responsible, including one involving one or more of the 9/11 hijackers, but each case has gaps that leave a final verdict impossible to determine without further evidence. The hijackers were all dead by the time the anthrax letters were sent, although if one or more were involved, they could have had other accomplices who then mailed the letters. Some believe the anti-Israeli elements of the letters were a deliberate attempt by the perpetrator(s) to point to a Middle Eastern source at a time when Americans were inflamed over the 9/11 attacks, which had occurred just a week or two before.

** Republicans claimed they were only questioning Cleland's judgment, not his patriotism, because of his opposition to President Bush's version of the "Homeland Security Bill," but Cleland helped write the bill and objected to a part pushed by the President and Republicans that would not have provided civil service status to employees of the new department. (See the article in "Salon," November 21, 2003 by Eric Boehlert) Cleland voted "for" passage of the bill in the vote that came after the election, a time when, if he had been against the bill, he could easily have voted against it, as the election was over. 

WORD HISTORY:
Most-This word goes back to Indo European "me," and the variant "meis," both with the general meaning of "big(ger), large(r)." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "maiz," which then produced "maist." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "maest," with the meaning "largest amount, greatest part." By Middle English it had become "most." The addition of "ly" makes it an adverb. Used extensively by other Germanic languages: German has "meist," Dutch has "meest," Swedish, Danish and Norwegian have "mest," and Icelandic has "mestu/mestur" (mostly/most). I could not find a form in modern Frisian, but Frisian once had "mast." Likewise, I could not find a form in Low German, but Old Saxon had "mest."