The whole point of free speech is not to make ideas exempt from criticism but to expose them to it.

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Obama, New Jersey and Virginia

So what do Tuesday's election results really mean for South Dakotans? Ultra-liberal Democrats who believe the fact that New Jersey and Virginia have elected GOP governors has no meaning to voters elsewhere are wrong. Republicans who believe that Tuesday's election results mean that Republicans are going to sweep the next election and win back the House and Senate, also are wrong.

The election is a blip. Yes, it does demonstrate that voters in Virginia and New Jersey have had their bellies full of the radical liberal agenda of our new president.

It also demonstrates, in New Jersey, that Christie's discussion of fiscal conservatism was more appealing to voters than his opponent, Democrat Jon Corzine's discussion of Christie's waistline. It was a campaign that demonstrated that negative campaigning doesn't always work. Liberals: Read this and ask yourself how Corzine's strategy worked for him.

The same is true in Virginia where Republican Robert F. McDonnell opened an electoral can of whoop-ass on his Democratic opponent, Creigh Deeds.

In up-state New York, the liberal Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava dropped out of the House race between Democrat Bill Owens and conservative candidate Douglas Hoffman. Mr. Hoffman lost. But he had a respectable showing for a politician nobody had heard of before Sarah Palin went out of her way to endorse the Conservative Party candidate just a couple weeks ago. Scozzafava was unattractive to Republicans in her own district because she was what our own Bill Napoli calls a RINO. In this case, though, she's really REALLY REALLY liberal and the outcome of the election should not have surprised anyone.

There was much talk Wednesday about our own blue dog Democrat Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin and what was a good day for the GOP means to Mrs. Sandlin. But she was in trouble before Tuesday's election.

I've said several times on this blog, and in other places, that Herseth-Sandlin would likely have little trouble waltzing back to Washington, if she maintained her conservative ways. But she hasn't. And, for the most part, she has avoided talking publicly about her views on health care. She voted against Bush's bail-out and for Obama's unstimulating stimulus.

Moderate Republicans who voted for her in this state will have viable alternatives from their own party in 2010. And, this is the first time I can honestly say I believe she's in trouble.

Her campaign staff is I'm sure sickened by the election results in New Jersey and Virginia, eventhough it will have little effect on her race, other than a barometer for what people are thinking. And, my suggestion is for them to stock up on Prilosec and Tums.


caheidelberger said...

On District 23: and so in reaction to the allegedly liberal policies of the GOP nominee, the voters send an even more verifiably liberal Democrat to Washington to help Pelosi and Obame do their work? Help me out on that one....

Michael Sanborn said...

You're right Cory. I blame the lateness of the hour for the convoluded nature of the post.

The House vote does indeed tell the radical right that, at least in some parts of the country, the message is not getting through, or it is getting through, but isn't taken seriously.

My point was that the election Tuesday wasn't as significant as the media (on all sides) would have us believe.

Bill Fleming said...

I agree, Mike. This little flurry of elections doesn't mean much, especially to South Dakotans.

The Democrats had the majority of US Governors before the elections, and they still do. New York elected a liberal (big surprise) just not a Republican iberal, SD might well elect a Democratic governor next year, etc, etc.

Move along, move along, nothing to see here folks.