It seems that...
microsoft works converter open office. microsoft office vs works 6.0 microsoft works Software Directory :: Download Microsoft Works 9 OEM microsoft works free demo discount microsoft works .microsoft works 2003 cheap
Martin Sheen and Stockard Channing who played President Jed Bartlet and First Lady Abbey Bartlet on The West Wing urge support for passage of the health care reform bill tomorrow (video above).
Somehow I don’t think there’s much of a chance that Crazy Pete will change his vote if I call his office.
Huffington Post gives a good review to Sachal Vasandani’s recent album which I previously plugged here:
While Jones hints at jazz, Chicago native Sachal Vasandani is immersed in it. His 2007 debut, Eyes Wide Open, was a stunning effort by a young man obviously enthralled by the classic aura of the jazz singer: piano, bass, drums, and a man in the middle singing his soul out. The only comparable contemporary I could imagine is Kurt Elling, and it’s no surprise that Vasandani borrows from his playbook with “Don’t Worry About Me” on his new album, We Move (Mack Ave Records). The record is a continuation of his debut, although there is a fuller, more mature energy. Tackling “Monk’s Dream,” with lyrics written by Jon Hendricks, is one such example: the bass-led intro smoothes out into Jeb Patton’s lovely piano solo, all the while kept in the pocket by longtime drummer Quincy Davis. We Move, as the title may suggest, has a bit more gusto than Eyes Wide Open, yet expect that same sedating, brilliant voice surrounding the sounds.
Sachal is also appearing live in at Cafe Metropol in Los Angeles tonight and tomorrow night.
I initially wasn’t going to bother responding to David Brooks‘ column today–until I read Pete Abel’s response. Brooks, perhaps thinking being a New York Times columnist gives him the authority, presumes to understand the thoughts of all independents. In the end he uses what he claims to be the views of independents to justify calling on the Democratic Party to do what he believes should be done.
One problem with the column is in discussing independents as a cohesive block of voters. I’ve already discussed the vast differences between independents in previous posts, such as here. There is no single position held by independents.
Abel cites a line from the column before proceeding to debunk Brooks’ premise. The line of interest, and the primary reason why I’m actually writing this post, is “Independents are herds of cats who find out what they think through a meandering process of discovery.” This leads to Pete Abel’s conclusion:
I shouldn’t tell Brooks how to write his column. Hell, he’s paid to write it, and I’m writing for nothing. Still … in floating test arguments for conservatives, Brooks’ seems to forget his meandering-cats metaphor and the import of that metaphor, namely: If in 12- to 18-months’ time, the cats can skew conservative, it’s entirely possible they’ll skew liberal in another 12- to 18-months, especially if the economy continues to heal and the masses get accustomed to new, more egalitarian health care rules.
See, that’s the problem with cats and independents, including this one. We’re sometimes forgetful, and very easily distracted.
Pete embraces Brooks’ characterization as a wandering cat while using it to show where Brooks is wrong. The more I think about it, the more I also like the description of “a meandering process of discovery.” Of course stress the fact that for many of us there was a process, and there is discovery. If looked at in the right way, meandering is not necessarily bad. This is far preferable to the ideologues, both on the left and right, who are always certain that all the answers are contained in their ideology.
I certainly have meandered over the decades. During my meandering, I’ve looked at the conservative movement and the Republican Party. I read magazines such as National Review and Human Events. Even decades ago, well before Fox, I saw many of the features of the conservative movement which we see today. Their use of the rhetoric supporting freedom was not matched by their policy positions. The conservative magazines created an imaginary world which contradicted what I read from more objective sources. Just as is the case now, conservatives would “explain” this by complaining of a biased press which was hiding the truth.
If Republicans supported freedom in their rhetoric alone, libertarians were more consistent here. Philosophically I come closest to libertarianism in the respect that I remain strongly committed to civil liberties. I would like libertarianism to be correct that everything else is also better when the government stays out. Unfortunately for holding such philosophical beliefs, I found that this is often not true. I also meandered away from the libertarian movement as I saw how easily libertarians were able to cherry pick facts to support their economic beliefs while ignoring any contrary evidence.
Practicing medicine and running a business made it clear that all the libertarian and conservative beliefs about health care which supported their opposition to “socialized medicine” were simply not grounded in reality. Libertarianism is unable to respond to the big problems which do require government action, such as the health care crisis and climate change. In response to such problems, libertarians and conservatives hide from reality and pretend the problems do not even exist.
Unfortunately I also found that libertarianism was often contaminated by its relationship to the conservative movement with libertarian beliefs often being twisted to lead to a decrease in personal freedom. This was especially apparent with Ron Paul’s presidential run. Many self-described libertarians justified his social conservatism, along with his view of states’ rights which would permit tyranny as long as done under the auspices of a state as opposed to the federal government. At least Paul was consistent in his opposition to the Iraq War, with people calling themselves libertarian even finding ways to justify the war and the Patriot Act.
Well before the 2008 election I had meandered closer to the Democrats. If I would have ever considered voting Republican, the Bush years made that impossible. At least the Democrats offered an alternative to neoconservative foreign policy and to the social views of the religious right. Meandering to hang out with the Democrats, I also found that their views were far different from how they were characterized by the right. That is primarily because of their views being mischaracterized, but to some degree as Democrats had also meandered a bit over the years.
I might not agree with Democrats on all matters but at least, in contrast to Republicans, their views tend to be reality based, especially if you exclude the extremes on the fringes. In the case of Republicans, the extremists have taken control. Even when I disagree with a Democrat or someone on the left, it often comes down to a difference of opinion based upon the actual facts, as opposed to the fantasy-based arguments which have become even more common from conservatives.
I’ve meandered quite a bit in this post, (far more than I initially intended) but I guess this is appropriate considering the title. Getting back to Brooks, Pete has it right. Independents are scared right now, but can easily meander back to the Democrats if they see signs that we are on the right track next year. Republicans might have picked up a couple of wins this week, but they mean very little when looking back at previous off-year elections. Independents might meander, and a few will meander back to the Republicans, but many of us will not. Back in 1992 I initially thought it might be a good thing to have a Republican Congress to counter Bill and Hillary Clinton. After seeing what they did, I won’t make that mistake again. On this point at least, I hope Pete is wrong about independents being forgetful.
Some conservatives are sure searching for a way to turn yesterday’s shooting at Fort Hood into yet another way to attack Barack Obama, failing to realize how disrespectful to the troops their sick attempts to play politics with this really are. I’ve already noted how some conservatives are whining about Obama’s response, with one conservative blog even going as far as to claim that his response shows that Obama hates the military and sides with a Jihadist. Jerome Corsi, well known for publishing lies about about both John Kerry and Barack Obama, now has invented yet another claim. Jason Linkins writes:
Well, if you were wondering what paranoiac smear artist would be the first to step out and attempt to name President Barack Obama as the man who guided Nidal Malik Hasan to his murderous rampage at Fort Hood yesterday, the answer — naturally! — is Jerome Corsi. Corsi has a long history of lunatic, fact-averse ravings and he fails to disappoint on that regard on the pages of World Net Daily, today, in a piece entitled “Shooter advised Obama transition.” Except, of course, he didn’t do any such thing.
See Linkins’ full post for an explanation of how this attack was fabricated. There’s more from Media Matters and from The Washington Independent. Apparently Corsi’s smear campaign against a war hero such as John Kerry wasn’t enough so now he goes and demonstrates how insincere the claims of support for the military coming from many segments of the right wing really are.
Lacking much of substance to attack Obama on, opponents have been desperate to grab at anything. Several conservative sites have latched onto this criticism of Obama’s response to yesterday’s tragic shooting at Fort Hood. The article complains about not seeing “a somber chief executive offering reassuring words and expressions of sympathy and compassion.”
One conservative blog even writes, after a ridiculous claim that Obama hates the military and sides with a Jihadist: “That he would call yesterday’s horrific act of violence an ‘outburst of violence’ validates that he deserves no respect. It is times like this that I REALLY miss President Bush.”
Beyond the absurdity of the earlier charges and objection to Obama’s objection to an “outburst of violence,” it is rather inane to use this to bring back the memory of George Bush. As most will recall, upon being informed of the the worst terrorist attack on this country, George Bush continued to read a about a pet goat. He was then virtually absent for a couple of days after a tragedy far more serious than the one yesterday.
Following is Barack Obama’s actual response to the shooting:
This morning, when the President gave his opening remarks at the Tribal Nations Conference, the day looked very different. By 5:02 EST when he was scheduled to give closing remarks, it was clear that all Americans were rightly concerned with the tragedy in Texas, and the President took his time to give his thoughts and prayers:
Now, I have to say, though, that beyond that, I plan to make some broader remarks about the challenges that lay ahead for Native Americans, as well as collaboration with our administration, but as some of you might have heard, there has been a tragic shooting at the Fort Hood Army base in Texas. We don’t yet know all the details at this moment; we will share them as we get them. What we do know is that a number of American soldiers have been killed, and even more have been wounded in a horrific outburst of violence.
My immediate thoughts and prayers are with the wounded and with the families of the fallen, and with those who live and serve at Fort Hood. These are men and women who have made the selfless and courageous decision to risk and at times give their lives to protect the rest of us on a daily basis. It’s difficult enough when we lose these brave Americans in battles overseas. It is horrifying that they should come under fire at an Army base on American soil.
I’ve spoken to Secretary Gates and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, and I will continue to receive a constant stream of updates as new information comes in. We are working with the Pentagon, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security, all to ensure that Fort Hood is secure, and we will continue to support the community with the full resources of the federal government.
In the meantime, I would ask all Americans to keep the men and women of Fort Hood in your thoughts and prayers. We will make sure that we get answers to every single question about this horrible incident. And I want all of you to know that as Commander-in-Chief, there’s no greater honor but also no greater responsibility for me than to make sure that the extraordinary men and women in uniform are properly cared for and that their safety and security when they are at home is provided for.
So we are going to stay on this. But I hope in the meantime that all of you recognize the scope of this tragedy, and keep everybody in their thoughts and prayers.
It sure sounds like Obama changed his planned statements to provide “reassuring words and expressions of sympathy and compassion” in response to the immediate situation. That is far more than what George Bush did after 9/11.
Update: Some conservatives are sure searching for a way to turn yesterday’s shooting at Fort Hood into yet another way to attack Barack Obama, failing to realize how disrespectful to the troops their sick attempts to play politics with this really are. Now even one of the Swift Boat Liars has gotten into the act. There’s yet another bizarre charge raised against Obama related to the shootings here.
Update II: Steve M. has more on the absurd attack from the right on Obama for calling the attack an “‘outburst of violence” while praising George Bush:
George W. Bush, responding to the conflict between Hamas and Israel last winter, in his weekly radio address, January 2, 2009 (emphasis added):
This recent outburst of violence was instigated by Hamas — a Palestinian terrorist group supported by Iran and Syria that calls for Israel’s destruction.
These people will grasp at any straw, won’t they?
Hey, at least they aren’t still blaming Bill Clinton for everything.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| The 11/3 Project | ||||
|
||||
Politico points out how bad the Republican losing streak is in special elections:
Lost amid the Republican euphoria surrounding Tuesday’s elections is this inconvenient fact: The GOP just got its clock cleaned, again, in another high-stakes House special election.
It shouldn’t have come as a surprise, since Republicans have lost 20 of the past 29 House special elections, dating back to January 2003. And in perhaps the most worrisome aspect of the trend, the GOP lost its fifth consecutive competitive special election in Republican-friendly territory.
On top of it, the Republicans not only lost but wound up with a civil war in their own party.
There was a lot of reaction to both the Democratic and Republican health care plans today. The tea baggers protested once again against what they have been misled to believe to be the Democratic Plan. Two groups which really understand both the issue and what is actually being proposed issued endorsements. I received a two page fax from the American Medical Association this afternoon endorsing the House plan.The fax praised the plan for expanding care, reforming the insurance markets preserving patient-physician decision making, investing in quality care, prevention, and wellness, and repealing the flawed formula for calculating Medicare payments.
Obama discussed the significance of this endorsement saying members of the AMA “are men and women who know our health care system best and have been watching this debate closely. They would not be supporting it if they really believed that it would lead to government bureaucrats making decisions that are best left to doctors. They would not be with us if they believed that reform would in any way damage the critical and sacred doctor-patient relationship.”
On this topic, the fax from the American Medical Association said:
Preserving the power of patients and their physicians to make health care decisions–rather than insurance companies or government officials–is of paramount importance to all physicians and to the AMA. While H.R. 3962 includes a number of new government oversight bodies, the AMA has not identified any new authority that would overpower the relationship between patients and their physicians. Furthermore, expanded coverage and choice should help empower patient and physician decision making.
He also gave one reason why so many physicians are endorsing health care reform:
They’ve seen what happens when patients can’t get the care they need because some insurance company has decided to drop their coverage or water it down. They’ve seen what happens when a patient’s forced to pay out-of- pocket costs of thousands of dollars that she doesn’t have, to get the treatment she desperately needs. They’ve seen what happens when patients don’t come in for regular checkups or screenings because either their insurance company doesn’t cover them or they can’t afford health insurance in the first place. And they’ve seen far, far too much of their time spent filling out forms and haggling with insurance company bureaucrats. So the doctors of America know what needs to be fixed about our health care system. They know that health insurance reform would go a long way toward doing that.
Obama is certainly right on that. All the scare stories raised by the right wingers are nothing compared to the horror stories we see every day under our current system.
The other key endorsement came from AARP. Obama commented:
When it comes to the AARP, this is no small endorsement,” he said. “For more than 50 years they have been a leader in the fight to reduce the costs of health care and expand coverage for our senior citizens. They are a nonpartisan organization and their board made their decision to endorse only after a careful, intensive, objective scrutiny of this bill. They’re endorsing this bill because they know it will strengthen Medicare, not jeopardize it; they know it will protect the benefits our seniors receive, not cut them.
The Republicans felt they had to come up with a counter plan rather than vote against the Democratic plan without having anything. What they came up with was worse than no plan. Ezra Klein reviewed the Congressional Budget Office’s evaluation of the plan noting how it compared to the Democratic Plan: “The Democratic bill, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan.”
The Republican National Committee announced plans for a twelve hour online town hall to “explain the democratic health care bill.” Democratic National Committee Press Secretary Hari Sevugan issued the following response: “We’re planning a twelve second town hall to explain every last detail of the GOP health care plan.”
I’ve argued many times that the Republicans have a short term advantage in off-year elections due to being far more motivated to turn out. Larry Sabato points out how the Republicans were more energized to turn out than Democrats:
Turnout played a huge role in the outcomes in both NJ and VA, with Republicans showing up in droves and Democrats going fishing, at least to some degree. In Virginia, one result of absentee Democrats was the lowest voter turnout for a gubernatorial election in the state’s modern two-party history (1969 to 2009). The 2009 turnout of 39.8 percent of the registered voters was the lowest in forty years. Even with all the population growth since 2005, the absolute voter turnout in 2009 (1.97 million) fell below that of four years ago (2.0 million). And the electorate was barely more than half that of 2008 (3.7 million). Astounding.
One reason Democratic turn out was far lower than in2008 is that Obama was not on the ballot, and this will be the case again in 2010. One solution would be to try to nationalize the election, and First Read reports that this is being considered:
In Axelrod’s interview with one of us, he talked about the Democrats’ turnout problem on Tuesday, and he claimed that if they nationalize 2010, they won’t have that problem. Translation: The White House is going to take a page from the 2002 White House playbook, which is to nationalize the midterms and try and do it on your terms. The downside of trying to AVOID nationalizing 2010 is what happened in Virginia — the base doesn’t show up, etc. So if the White House wants to minimize losses in 2010, then it has to get as many of their 2008 voters to the polls. And that means the president has to be front and center. Axelrod made that crystal clear in his interview.
This might help reduce losses, but this will also mean that Obama’s reputation will be far more on the line than it was this year. They won’t be able to excuse losses as events in local elections. Even if this gets out more Democratic voters, this still leaves Republicans with an edge in 2010. Nationalizing the election will motivate even more Republicans as well as Democrats to turn out.
Democrats also face the historical trend for the winning party in a presidential election year to lose in the next Congressional elections. Many recently elected Democrats are also faced with the task of defending seats which have historically been held by Republicans. While long term trends, both in terms of declining party identity and national demographics, do not look good for the Republicans, short therm they are well positioned for a dead cat bounce next year.
Carrie Prejean has already stimulated controversy over semi-nude photos which she attributed to the wind blowing away her clothes and unintentionally exposing her breasts. I imagine that if conservatives can believe the statements of people like George Bush and Sarah Palin, along with the arguments of other creationists and global warming deniers, they might even believe this. TMZ now reports that an XXX rated home video of Prejean has surfaced, leading to a settlement in her suit against the Miss California USA Pageant:
Carrie Prejean demanded more than a million dollars during her settlement negotiations with Miss California USA Pageant officials — that is, until the lawyer for the Pageant showed Carrie an XXX home video of her handiwork.
The video the lawyer showed Carrie is extremely graphic and has never been released publicly. We know that, because TMZ obtained the video months ago but decided not to post it because it was so racy. Let’s just say, Carrie has a promising solo career.
We’re told it took about 15 seconds for Carrie to jettison her demand and essentially walk away with nothing. As we first reported, the Pageant is paying around $100,000 to her lawyers and publicist — a fraction of her bills. She pockets nothing in the settlement.
Discussions of the Republicans winning independent votes yesterday by the media are showing misconceptions about independent voters. First Read concludes “it’s about the middle, it’s about independents.” Their error is in assuming that independents and the middle are the same. Some independents certainly are centrists but many of us hold other views. There are liberal independents such as myself who have tended to vote Democratic on social issues in recent elections while not identifying with the Democratic Party for other reasons. Marc Ambinder points out that it was conservative independents who turned out to vote yesterday:
Yes, independents are moving to the GOP. That’s a big headline. Bad news for Dems, etc, etc. But. And this is important: these are conservative independents. Many disassociated with the GOP — at least in terms of what they tell pollsters — because of the GOP brand problems and because it’s cool to be independent in parts of the country and in parts of states. Don’t confuse “moderates” with “independents.” Still, it seems clear that for people who call themselves independent, Republican messages wear better than Democrats.
Steve Benen discussed the problem of referring to independents as a group with a single set of views and pointed back to this analysis of independents published in 2007.
The independents who voted yesterday did tend to prefer Republican messages as Ambinder stated, but that very well could be because it was conservative independents who turned out to vote while the types of independents who tend to vote Democratic were less motivated to vote. An argument might be made that Democrats could do better among independents by being more moderate. It is also likely that Democrats would do a better job of motivating more liberal independents to turn out to vote for them by providing them with reasons to back them, such as by showing success in addressing problems such as health care and climate change.
Another problem is that identification as an independent, as well as identification with parties, is fluid. There are now many moderates and moderate conservatives who previously called considered themselves Republican but identify less with the party after its move to the far right. Similarly many people who previously called themselves independents have joined the far larger tent offered by the Democratic Party.
It is notable that the two victories by Republicans in New Jersey and Virginia were by Republicans who moved towards the center. As I noted previously, New Jersey Republican Chris Christie even tried to tie himself to Obama, presumably to bring in the votes of independents who support Obama.
Ultimately any interpretation of the voting by independents carries the same problems at extrapolating the results from yesterday as I discussed in the previous post. Local issues and candidates also influenced the votes of independents in these elections and this does not provide a basis for predicting how independents will vote in 2010 and 2012.
More on the 2009 election results:
Local Elections and National Politics
Democrat Wins In New York 23rd
I’ve already commented on the limited meaning of yesterday’s elections. The argument that all politics is local is over used and often false, but yesterday was one of the times when local politics was more important than national trends. The Wall Street Journal pointed out how difficult it is to draw conclusions from such off-year elections:
But it can be difficult to draw broader conclusions from off-year contests, which often turn on local issues.
Going back to 1989, one party swept the off-year gubernatorial elections five times. Three of those times, that party also won the following year’s congressional elections; twice it did not.
In 1993, Republicans Christie Todd Whitman in New Jersey and George Allen in Virginia captured their states’ governor’s mansions. The following year brought the dramatic Republican takeover of Congress.
In 2001 gubernatorial races, Democrats Jim McGreevey in New Jersey and Mark Warner in Virginia swept to victory. The next year, Republicans gained seats in the House and Senate.
In June 2006, Republicans won a special House race in California, and Republicans crowed that the Democrats’ much-ballyhooed momentum was a fantasy. But in the fall elections that year, Democrats captured 31 seats and retook the House for the first time in 12 years.
“I don’t think they say anything,” Curtis Gans, director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate at American University, said of off-year elections. “The sample is too small and the issues are local.”
First Read even shows that New Jersey and Virginia are following long standing trends:
After a while, you can’t dismiss these trends: Yesterday became the NINTH-consecutive time (since 1977) that the party that won the White House lost Virginia’s gubernatorial contest the following year. And yesterday became the SIXTH-consecutive time (since 1989) that the party controlling the White House lost New Jersey’s gov race. Whether due to buyer’s remorse, happenstance, or a combination of the two, those trends should give all us pause in making broad statements about last night’s two contests — and what they mean for the White House, the midterms, or the next presidential contest.
An analysis from CNN also points out the importance of local politics:
Victories in New Jersey and Virginia Tuesday provided a major shot in the arm for the Republican Party heading into the 2010 elections, but the Democratic losses of these two governorships should not be interpreted as a significant blow to President Obama.
While the economy and jobs were the chief concern for voters in both states, 26 percent of New Jersey residents said property taxes was also a major issue, while another 20 percent mentioned corruption, according to CNN exit polling. In a similar CNN survey taken in Virginia, health care was the most important issue for 24 percent of the voters, while 15 percent named taxes and transportation was mentioned by 7 percent.
Further proof that this election was not solely focused on Obama, 56 percent of Virginians said that the president was not a factor when it came down to their vote. In New Jersey, that number increased to 60 percent of the people who went to the polls on Tuesday.
Perhaps this was the problem for Virginia Sen. Creigh Deeds and New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine.
Neither Democratic candidate was Obama; neither was a great spokesman for “change;” and Democratic strategists and grassroots activists said each candidate failed to give independents a reason to support them.
One problem for the Democrats, which could also be a problem in the off-year elections in 2010, is that the Democrats won big in 2008 by bringing in many new voters who are less likely to vote in off-year elections. CNN notes:
In New Jersey, while Corzine overwhelmingly won among African-Americans, only 14 percent of the vote was black; young people, age 18 to 29, made up 9 percent of the vote and 36 percent of them backed Republican Chris Christie. Meanwhile, 60 percent of independents supported Christie as well.
The numbers were worse for Deeds in Virginia. Ten percent of the electorate was age 18 to 29 and Republican Bob McDonnell captured 54 percent of this voting bloc. Deeds overwhelmingly carried the African-American vote that made up16 percent of people who turned out on Tuesday, while 66 percent of voters who identified themselves as independents backed McDonnell.
The voters in off-year elections are older and whiter than those in general elections. In the short term this helps the Republicans in off-year elections. On the other hand, it does not bode well in the long run for Republicans to be dependent upon declining demographic groups.
This year’s elections also raised a number of issues regarding interference in national races by the national party. I’ve already discussed the ramifications of conservative Republicans opposing a moderate candidate here and here. In contrast, New Jersey represents a case which could be used as reason for the national party to get involved in getting an incumbent not to run–not due to ideology but due to being a weak candidate. Corzine has had approval ratings in the 30’s and the race was clearly a referendum on Corzine and not Obama. Nate Silver pointed out:
Voters in Tuesday’s election approved of Obama’s performance 57 percent to 43 percent, according to exit polling. It was Corzine they didn’t like; 27 percent of the voters who approved of Obama nevertheless found someone other than the Democratic incumbent to vote for.
Support for Obama was not enough to make up for disapproval of Corzine. During the campaign Republican candidate Chris Christie had even tried to tie himself to Obama in campaign videos which showed Obama.
With Obama’s campaign visits to New Jersey not being of any value, I’ve seen suggestions that he might have better used his time going to New York to help the Democratic candidate beat Michael Bloomberg. A visit by Obama might have made a difference considering that Bloomberg won by a closer margin than expected, primarily due to many voters objecting to the manner by which he repealed term limits in order to run. While it might be true that Obama’s intervention could have led to the defeat of Bloomberg, I question if Obama had any interest in doing so. Bloomberg has been supportive of Obama and I bet Obama is perfectly happy seeing Bloomberg remain as mayor of New York.
We expect that when a political party has a victory they might over-emphasize its meaning and when they lose they will play it down. That’s just the nature of the game. Back in 2001 the Republican National Committee argued that their losses that year had no bearing on the midterm election to take place a year later. As is very often the case with such elections, they turned out to be right. I don’t have any proof, but my bet is that the same year the Democrats were claiming that their wins were significant. This year the Republicans are taking the opposite line and are playing up their wins in Virginia and New Jersey. While these wins have no real national significance, a win is still a win. While I disagree about the significance, I cannot blame GOP leaders for bragging. What makes no sense is to brag about a loss.
I already discussed the Democratic pick up in New York’s 23rd Congressional district. Many conservative blogs such as Red State are claiming a victory. Erick Erickson argues that conservatives “have demonstrated to the GOP that it must not take conservatives for granted.” If the point was to show that conservatives could prevent a Republican from winning by supporting a third party candidate there was no need for this exercise. Anyone would have granted them this possibility.
I am sure that Democrats will be very happy to see conservative Republicans adopt a strategy of challenging moderate Republicans in such a manner and allowing Democrats to win. Of course for those of us who hope to see the return of a viable two party system without one of the parties being dominated by extremists, this is an unfortunate strategic decision by the far right. Unfortunately it has been clear for several years that the far right has won the civil war for control of the GOP and that their goal is purging all members who do not share their extremist views.
If all the support from Republican spokesmen such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, along with intervention from Sarah Palin and the Club of Growth, had resulted in a conservative pick up they would have cause for celebration. Instead one of the rare remaining Republican seats in the northeast has gone Democratic for the first time in over a century. The Republicans had managed to hold the seat in recent years with a moderate Republican. Now they have prevented another moderate Republican from winning but the result was to give the seat to the Democrats.
Republicans have been spinning yesterday’s results to claim that this will hinder the passage of health care reform. Their two new Republican governors have no votes on health care reform but the real result of yesterday’s elections is that the Democrats now have two more Democratic Congressmen than they had before the election. That’s two more votes which might be cast in favor of the bill.
(Hat tip to Jessica S. for the video via Facebook.)
With all the noise from the media about the handful of elections on Tuesday I do not want to say much to suggest more significance to the elections than they actually have–which is damn close to zero with regards to forecasting the future prospects of either party. Exit polls demonstrated that the races were in no way a referendum on Obama. That said, a comment must be made on the race in New York’s 23rd Congressional district. Like the other elections, it has near zero predictive value. It’s significance is not in predicting the future but in demonstrating where we are at today. This seat, which had been Republican for the past century, was won by Democrat Bill Owens.
For the benefit of anyone who might not have been following the race, a special election was held because of Barack Obama appointing the former Congressman, John M. McHugh, to be Secretary of the Army. Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava faced strong opposition from the right wing for positions such as supporting abortion rights, gay rights, and the stimulus package. Supporting both individual liberty and preserving our economy while keeping the country out of a depression was simply an agenda which few conservatives could go along with.
Scozzafava became a target of leading spokesmen of the national Republican Party such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Many Republican leaders, including Sarah Palin, backed Conservative Party candidate Douglas Hoffman. Hoffman even referred to Glenn Beck as his mentor.
The election spurred debate in the Republican Party as a handful of Republicans questioned the sanity of opposing more liberal Republicans. Newt Gingrich backed Scozzafava while she was in the race, recognizing that having moderate candidates in more liberal areas is the only way to rebuild a majority. Over the weekend Scozzafava dropped out and endorsed Owens. (Meanwhile those who watched the fantasy Fox coverage were initially told that Scozzafava was backing Hoffman.)
In the end conservatives got the satisfaction of refusing to support a RINO but the consequence was losing a previously safe Republican district. This provides an example of why, despite a dead cat bounce in a couple of gubernatorial elections this year, the Republican Party is rapidly becoming a fringe regional party. Rather than understanding how their extremism is dooming the party, Hoffman quickly claimed the election was stolen. He even blamed Acorn, which is certain to lead to many right wingers believing his claims.
