When the Republican party scored big gubernatorial wins in New Jersey and Virginia yesterday, emerging victorious in those two blue states that voted for Obama only one short year ago, I couldn't help but think of all the pundits and talking heads who giddily predicted years and years of GOP'ers scrounging for food in the political wilderness after Obama's historic 2008 victory and the 2006 Democratic takeover of Congress. 'The political landscape has shifted forever !' proclaimed these sages of punditry (who almost all happen to be Democrats). 'The Reagan Revolution is over ! The GOP is marginalized !,' intoned these bellwethers of bombastic buffoonery (who almost all happen to be Democrats).
As it turns out, forever isn't a very long time when it comes to politics. The Republicans won almost everything yesterday. They even won the one race they lost. I'll get back to that in a minute.
Despite being outspent by a margin of 3-to-1, and despite President Obama bringing his star power to bear by campaigning for his opponent, Republican challenger Chris Christie defeated the Democratic incumbent governor of New Jersey, the billionaire Jon Corzine. New Jersey has been a solid blue state for years, so this was a major 'get' for the GOP. In Virginia, a traditional swing state, the Republicans won the governorship by a landslide. They also won the Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General races by landslides. In New York city, Republican Michael Bloomberg (or is he an Independent now ?) won a third term. My liberal television station du jour (I chose to watch CNN attempt to explain the voting results away), kept saying that the wealthy Bloomberg "bought the vote." Notably, I never heard CNN say a word about the wealthy Democrat Corzine attempting to buy the vote in New Jersey, which is one reason I'm referring to them as my liberal television station du jour.
CNN came up with a variety of rationalizations in an attempt to explain away yesterday's GOP wins. Here are the top few:
1) The Democrats weren't energized like they were in 2008. They have a post-Obama hangover.
2) The opposition party always wins the year after a presidential election.
3) These are only local races with no national significance, and no significance in 2010.
4) Crazed wingnuts like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and the Tea Partiers have whipped the conservatives up into conniptions, causing them to turn out at the voting booth (and may I add, we're lucky nobody was hurt).
What CNN seems unable to grasp are the actual facts. The economy stinks, Obama is running the deficit through the roof, Americans are against ObamaCare, Americans don't want a bunch of new taxes during a recession, Americans don't want their electricity bills to go up, Americans are alarmed at all the government expansion and overreach, joblessness is around 17%, etc, etc.
Now let me get back to the one significant bright spot for the Democrats in yesterday's elections, if you can call it a bright spot (CNN certainly tried to make the claim). In New York state's 23rd congressional district, Democrat Bill Owens defeated Conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman and Republican party candidate Dede Scozzafava in what can only be termed a comedy of errors by the Republican keystone cops in New York. The GOP really had to bollux things up to lose this race. The 23rd district had been controlled by Republicans for a century. All the GOP had to do was nominate an actual Republican and this race was theirs, but they couldn't even manage that much. Instead, they stuck Scozzafava on the ballot, a Democrat in Republican clothing. Predictably, most Republicans didn't like her, though Newt Gingrich proved he cares more about party power than principle by backing her. Shame on Newt. Scozzafava faltered badly in the polls and unknown third party candidate Hoffman surged into the lead as several prominent Republicans supported him. The Republicans still would have won the race with Hoffman, but then Scozzafava dropped out and stabbed the stumblebum GOP in the back by supporting the Democrat Owens. With Scozzafava dropping out so late in the race, her name still appeared on the ballot, and enough party line Republicans voted for her to hand the race to the Democrat. Just brilliant, GOP. Just brilliant. Owens wins without a majority of the vote, even though the majority of the voters were against him. I only hope the Republican party bosses in New York stay away from sharp objects, or they might hurt themselves.
In a mind-numbing bit of illogical gymnastics, CNN claimed the Owens win illustrated that the GOP can't win with far right candidates like Hoffman. I kid you not. Here's Hoffman, who has never run for political office in his life, who is not anywhere close to being a polished politician (which is a plus in my book), running as a third party candidate against a career Democrat, with a Republican candidate scraping off critical votes and endorsing his opponent, and Hoffman still almost pulls it off, losing by only 3-4 points. And CNN decides Hoffman is one of the wingnut fringe. Such "analysis" makes CNN the wingnut fringe, if you ask me. Larry King couldn't say Hoffman's name without referring to him as "far right" or "wingnut," due to Hoffman's affinity for the Tea Party movement. Hoffman, btw, stands for fiscal responsiblity, reducing the debt, low taxes, etc. You know, all those "wingnutty" ideas that all sane people favor.
I'm just glad I didn't watch MSNBC. Has that station accused any Republicans of stealing elections yet ? If not, give them time. I'm sure they will, as soon as Keith Olbermann finds out there was a Republican working for the Board of Elections somewhere in New Jersey.
{ 26 comments… read them below or add one }
King to answer your last question about MSNBC… they have not accused Republicans of stealing elections. In fact they pretty much ignored the election all together. Olbermann was too busy showing Yankee highlights. Maddow was on commercial when Corzine was making his concession speech.
Then the shocker… the 10 pm slot was a RERUN!!! MSNBC advertised they were going to have a live 10 pm Countdown. Seriously, election night in America and a “news network” shows a re-run of a show that’s two hours old. Have to figure Olbermann walked off the set in a huff and refused to go back on.
Proves you can be a real news organization even if you stop reporting the news.
My concern is the beltway Reps. thinking that they won and the mainstream press treating this as strictly a Deem. vs. Rep. issue. As much as I loath the progressive agenda I take little comfort in the Rep. party. The only vision I detect is their need to maintain some semblence of power so they can continue to reap the benfits "owed" them. We need to let the clowns know many 0f us didn't vote Republicans but rather against the direction our country is being taken.
King: I'm just glad I didn't watch MSNBC. Has that station accused any Republicans of stealing elections yet ?
I was just waiting for trunks to pop open with "misplaced" ballot boxes, but many box trucks would have been required to make up this difference. Maybe a lesson wasn't learned in Copenhagen……………….his mere presence is beginning to prove counterproductive. Many incumbents shall be up for reelection, yet his ego will not be able to refrain from "helping" his comrades. He has now become the grim reaper of his own party.
Initially, I was disappointed with NY23…………. but then I took a step back and looked at the pros. The voters rejected the status quo of the GOP, a phony republicans show how they roll when rejected, and the seat isn't any worse off than it would have been under Scozza. A new level of tolerance has been established for acceptable candidates…………maybe. I'll gladly welcome matchups that pit hardcore conservatives against hardcore liberals in 2010. It beats watching liberals posing as centrists, taking on moderates who claim they're conservative, and at least we know what we're getting.
The wicked witch of the west is trying to fast-track ObamaCare, all eyes on blue dogs, and the tea party is DC bound tomorrow. If we shut down this desperate push for socialized medicine, the domino effect takes over.
And if the domino effect takes over, then what happens? Does every state have to suffer through depression-like conditions, like California, to satisfy the "we can't raise taxes on the rich" crowd?
king is full of shit as usual
It seems like the depression-like conditions are in states, like California, that have high taxes and are run by democrats, Reverend.
Good one, Tbomb.
Ditto. Good one Tbomb. When you have no substantive arguments, attack your adversary. Great way to show the strength of your position.
Pleeeeze, to all you "pundits" out there…………Stop! GOP wins in N.J. & VA. are NOT referendums on Democrats! It WILL be a referendum if and when Congress isn`t Democratic and the President is a Republican. Mmmmmmm, let`s see, the state with serious problems is…..aahhhh………let me think………………aahhhhhh………mmmmmmm………..oh yeah, California, run by a Republican(I think). Maroons!
The Republicans were thrown a line by that middle of the road 20% that usually make the difference. They were alienated by 8 years of Bush, and now they're starting to swing back, not toward anybody but away from somebody who has so far let them down (and scared some of them in the process).
Rev asks "Does every state have to suffer through depression-like conditions, like California, to satisfy the "we can't raise taxes on the rich" crowd?"
Since half of the population isn't paying anything in taxes, why not ask them to be "patriotic" as well and step up to plate? I would guess that a lot of people who pay little or no tax aren't fully declaring all income (working in the cash economy) and gaming the system to their best advantage. It's the American way. I know a few people doing this and it is extremely unfair.
IMO, a flat tax or national sales tax is the only way to keep things fair for all. The rich would still pay more, as they consume higher value products. I think something like this would immediately heal the economy, instead of more punitive taxes on success.
Rev: And if the domino effect takes over, then what happens? Does every state have to suffer through depression-like conditions, like California, to satisfy the "we can't raise taxes on the rich" crowd?
You and I both know that the problem with California is not "rich" people getting richer. High taxation, excessive regulation, and anti-industry sentiments is causing the revenue base to migrate elsewhere. Very soon they'll be left with a state that only has government jobs to offer, yet no more means to subsidize this sham. Then the working class gets taxed even heavier to make up the shortfall, instead of slashing the hell out of excess government. California is destined to become a welfare state, from head to toe, unless someone stumbles upon common-sense. If someone is already paying 40-50% of their income, is this not enough? Or do we just adjust the tax rates to balance the shortfalls attributed to out of control spending? Why are taxes always the answer and not restraint?
Why are taxes always the answer and not restraint, for Rev Red? Does that question not answer for everybody why I call the Reverend, Red? I called him that for years on the Akron forum and for very good reason. He believes the answer to everything not involving spending restraint is raising taxes in an attempt to redistribute the wealth. Isn't there a man in a high position in DC who told some maybe plumber over a year ago that redistribution is the way to make things fair for everybody? It seems there is some guy there who King called Saint Barack of Hopenchange who is finding his main theme starting to fall apart? Oh well, maybe the GOP can figure out how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory next fall. They have done quite well that way for a number of years past.
How many times do I have to remind folks that when America was in it's prime in the 50's….the highest tax rate was 90%. I don't need to hear more nonsense about how oh-so-bad raising tax rates on millionaires is. The rich in America haven't had it this good….probably ever. And 15% capital gains taxes for their stock gambling pleasure, to boot.
The reason the income and wealth gap is so large now, huge amounts of wealth shifting into the hands of just a few, …..is because of the continuous breaks given to the most affluent over a 50 year span.
Yes, government always needs trimming…..but taxes on the richest need raising. We need revenue.
here's a good story from ThinkProgress………
"In the run-up to Tuesday’s special election in New York’s 23rd congressional district, Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman met with the editorial board of the Watertown Daily Times, the largest paper in the district. After Hoffman “showed no grasp of the bread-and-butter issues pertinent to district residents,” his companion in the meeting, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, rose to his defense by dismissing regional concerns as “parochial” issues that would not determine the outcome of the election."
then teabag leader Armey sez out of the other side of his face………“The fact of the matter is, he didn’t pay enough attention to the local concerns, and they were able to tag him as being unaware of the local needs and concerns,” Armey said.
the republicans are back…..just like ped0phile protector John Boehner threw Dennis Hastert under the bus here is his fellow traveler Dick Armey throwing Hoffman under the bus
SS/DD
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/05/armey-hoffman-bus/
You're really stuck on the pedophile thing, aren't you walt? I guess as long as you're not hassling the Obama girls with that filth we should count ourselves lucky.
You know, I'm beginning to wonder if some of the ppl who post here are, in fact, real people who are actually saying what they really think. The Reverend dude comes off as a total liberal lemming, walter is obsessed with pedophilia and seems confused about the difference between Libertarians and Republicans. Fred doesn't address any issues actually discussed and is woefully unaware of the political party Maria Shriver's husband belongs to, though the dichotomy of that arrangement has been the source of many a news story.
If this is the quality of the average voter (clueless, lemming, and sensationalist) out there, no wonder the quality of those we elect is so poor.
Rev says, "but taxes on the richest need raising. We need revenue."
I wouldn't be against a tax increase on the super rich (earners above, say, $2 million annually, excluding small businesses) considering the circumstances, but the Reverend is missing the boat. In 10 short years, the size of the federal government has DOUBLED, and the Reverend thinks this is a revenue problem ? Typical upside-down liberal thinking. It's a spending problem. We can't just keep increasing taxes over and over to fund the ever-growing appetite of government bureaucrats. We just can't. THAT will be the avenue to depression-like conditions.
dd20,
That was pretty funny stuff about MSNBC not covering the elections. One reason I chose CNN as my liberal television station du jour for the elections is because five minutes of listening to Keith Olbermann makes me want to hurl. I keep telling myself I should write a post about Olbermann, but I just can't get interested enough to do it. Olby's various "expressions" remind me of one of those over-the-top hammy actors from the silent film era. Come to think of it, Olby being silent would be a great improvement.
I had to choose between CNN and Fox that night and what King says CNN used to twist and turn the facts about that day proved to me that I didn't make the wrong choice. I didn't agree with all the thinking of the Fox people but I sure didn't have to watch Larry King and Campbell Brown do their thing. I don't like Hannity if the same time slot as King but I don't get as physically sick watching Hannity as I do King, often.
I agree that the choice between Larry King and Hannity isn't the greatest. I watched CNN that night specifically to get their election spin. They didn't disappoint. They spun the heck out of the facts. I guess Obama should come out and say CNN isn't a news organization, ha ha.
You rang, Tory?…
" The Reverend dude comes off as a total liberal lemming, .."
What is a total liberal lemming? This Reverend dude doesn't want to take away your guns….is that being, like, a total liberal lemming? Is wanting the government to stay out of our personal lives a liberal lemming position?….cause I agree with that too. How about wanting to kill Bin Laden….is that what liberal lemmings want to do?
I don't lemming-up to anyone. I've written several posts criticizing Obama…and there will be many more, from the looks of it. The left actually criticizes their own Democratic presidents….glaringly unlike the conservative right.
tory sez….."walter is obsessed with pedophilia and seems confused about the difference between Libertarians and Republicans."
the difference between republicans and libertarians……that would be a good question for Ron Paul
as far as ped0phile protector republican John Boehner……hey, he's the face of the republican/libertarian/conservative party. The people who follow such a dispicable creep like Boehner are the true lemmings
Just leave the Obama girls out of it, walt.
Rev Red says that he wants the government to stay out of our personal lives and yet he supports what will become the government takeover of medical care from his home doorway to the hospital and back again. Yep, he wants them to stay out of our personal lives.
I can't wait to see his comments on the words of the Dem turncoat, Joe Lieberman, about what surely was on the mind of Hasan as he went about his grisly "mission" preceded by the shout about God is great. Of course, as the lefties are saying now he was surely suffering from PTSD and he had never been in combat until that day. What say you about that attack, Rev?
Hey, roy….is that what they said about Eisenhower's interstate highway boondoggles in the 50's. Did the 50's wingnuts say that Eisenhower was trying to takeover our transportation routes and make all the patriotic American wingnuts travel where the government wanted them to travel, you know, on poorly maintained and limited highways?
Is that what you 50's Kansans said back then…roy….
And I think the attack was a horrible and senseless tragedy. Hasan, alone, is responsible. Insanity and religiousity are very similar in nature. It looks to me like Hasan was both religious and insane. Double dose of poison. That's what I think.
A lot of side issues here. The most important point to me seems to be that this man took an oath of allegiance not intending to be bound by it; down deep he has always hated our guts. He was probably reinforced some by his contacts with other similarly inclined Muslims. If the establishment had said, "Let's not take a chance on this guy" and kicked him out, what would have been the reaction of the ACLU? – and the Rev?