NBC News projects Democrat win in N.Y. vote The rural, upstate race highlights a split in GOP loyalties ALBANY, N.Y. - Democrat Bill Owens has captured the special election for a New York congressional seat that became a fight over the identity of the Republican Party.
Owens defeated Conservative Doug Hoffman and Republican Dierdre Scozzafava in the heavily Republican 23rd Congressional District in rural northern New York state. Scozzafava abruptly withdrew Saturday and supported Owens.
Hoffman has conceded the race.
With 88 percent of the precincts reporting, Owens had 49 percent of the vote to 46 percent for Hoffman. Scozzafava had 6 percent.
The race has been getting national attention, with some calling it a referendum on President Barack Obama and others saying it could help Republicans focus their message to attract more people to the party.
Scozzafava abruptly quit the race over the weekend and backed Owens after some prominent Republicans accused her of being too liberal for the district because of her support of abortion rights and same-sex marriage.
Hoffman started at a distant third and was viewed as a spoiler at best, cutting away at Scozzafava and opening the door for Owens. But prominent Republicans, including former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, endorsed Hoffman instead of the party-picked Scozzafava.
A Hoffman win could force Republicans in Washington to pay closer attention to their votes and positions on issues, rather than counting on the Republican label to get them elected.
"The reality is that the grass roots is not going to walk lockstep on these decisions and so that's a reality (the party is) going to have to deal with," said Tony Fabrizio, a Washington-based Republican pollster and strategist.
An Owens win could signal renewed strength among Democrats, or at least reassure them of Republicans' perceived weakness. It's a seat that has been strongly Republican for decades and is one of only three in the state's 29-seat delegation held by the party. Republican John McHugh vacated the seat in September to become Army secretary.
begin 666 2.gif M1TE&.#EA"@`*`*('`$"+0.?PY[_8OX"R@ !D`*#%H/_______R'Y! $```<` M+ `````*``H```,F> (T<E"1$ IX$ 1C2AG1U'E$-'AH"2UI$2D#013-^\J@ '#>'Z3B0`.P`` ` end
> NBC News projects Democrat win in N.Y. vote > The rural, upstate race highlights a split in GOP loyalties > ALBANY, N.Y. - Democrat Bill Owens has captured the special election for a > New York congressional seat that became a fight over the identity of the > Republican Party.
> Owens defeated Conservative Doug Hoffman and Republican Dierdre Scozzafava > in the heavily Republican 23rd Congressional District in rural northern > New York state. Scozzafava abruptly withdrew Saturday and supported Owens.
> Hoffman has conceded the race.
> With 88 percent of the precincts reporting, Owens had 49 percent of the > vote to 46 percent for Hoffman. Scozzafava had 6 percent.
> The race has been getting national attention, with some calling it a > referendum on President Barack Obama and others saying it could help > Republicans focus their message to attract more people to the party.
> Scozzafava abruptly quit the race over the weekend and backed Owens after > some prominent Republicans accused her of being too liberal for the > district because of her support of abortion rights and same-sex marriage.
> Hoffman started at a distant third and was viewed as a spoiler at best, > cutting away at Scozzafava and opening the door for Owens. But prominent > Republicans, including former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and > Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, endorsed Hoffman instead of the party-picked > Scozzafava.
> A Hoffman win could force Republicans in Washington to pay closer > attention to their votes and positions on issues, rather than counting on > the Republican label to get them elected.
> "The reality is that the grass roots is not going to walk lockstep on > these decisions and so that's a reality (the party is) going to have to > deal with," said Tony Fabrizio, a Washington-based Republican pollster and > strategist.
> An Owens win could signal renewed strength among Democrats, or at least > reassure them of Republicans' perceived weakness. It's a seat that has > been strongly Republican for decades and is one of only three in the > state's 29-seat delegation held by the party. Republican John McHugh > vacated the seat in September to become Army secretary.
it would have been better if Hoffman won. A victory have really emboldened the lunatic fringe and frightened the "mainstream" Repubnots. and have really messed up the party. The Dems are going to Gerrymander that district out of existance anyway and one extra vote in the house for the Dems is meaningless as they already have a majority.
On Nov 4, 7:56 am, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> it would have been better if Hoffman won. > A victory have really emboldened the lunatic fringe and frightened the > "mainstream" Repubnots. > and have really messed up the party. > The Dems are going to Gerrymander that district out of existance anyway and > one extra vote in the house for the Dems is meaningless as they already have > a majority.
I agree that a Hoffman win would have been more fun in further splitting the GOP.
As it is, though, the radical right in Congress might be a bit chastened (instead of emboldened) as we try to wrap up health care reform after this profound belly flop.
> > NBC News projects Democrat win in N.Y. vote > > The rural, upstate race highlights a split in GOP loyalties > > ALBANY, N.Y. - Democrat Bill Owens has captured the special election for a > > New York congressional seat that became a fight over the identity of the > > Republican Party.
> > Owens defeated Conservative Doug Hoffman and Republican Dierdre Scozzafava > > in the heavily Republican 23rd Congressional District in rural northern > > New York state. Scozzafava abruptly withdrew Saturday and supported Owens.
> > Hoffman has conceded the race.
> > With 88 percent of the precincts reporting, Owens had 49 percent of the > > vote to 46 percent for Hoffman. Scozzafava had 6 percent.
> > The race has been getting national attention, with some calling it a > > referendum on President Barack Obama and others saying it could help > > Republicans focus their message to attract more people to the party.
> > Scozzafava abruptly quit the race over the weekend and backed Owens after > > some prominent Republicans accused her of being too liberal for the > > district because of her support of abortion rights and same-sex marriage.
> > Hoffman started at a distant third and was viewed as a spoiler at best, > > cutting away at Scozzafava and opening the door for Owens. But prominent > > Republicans, including former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and > > Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, endorsed Hoffman instead of the party-picked > > Scozzafava.
> > A Hoffman win could force Republicans in Washington to pay closer > > attention to their votes and positions on issues, rather than counting on > > the Republican label to get them elected.
> > "The reality is that the grass roots is not going to walk lockstep on > > these decisions and so that's a reality (the party is) going to have to > > deal with," said Tony Fabrizio, a Washington-based Republican pollster and > > strategist.
> > An Owens win could signal renewed strength among Democrats, or at least > > reassure them of Republicans' perceived weakness. It's a seat that has > > been strongly Republican for decades and is one of only three in the > > state's 29-seat delegation held by the party. Republican John McHugh > > vacated the seat in September to become Army secretary.
> it would have been better if Hoffman won. > A victory have really emboldened the lunatic fringe and frightened the > "mainstream" Repubnots. > and have really messed up the party. > The Dems are going to Gerrymander that district out of existance anyway and > one extra vote in the house for the Dems is meaningless as they already have > a majority.
Pfft...If Hoffman won it would have been a huge PR boon for Palin and her puppeteers Armey and Kristol. Now? A Sarah endorsement brings a loss.
> > > NBC News projects Democrat win in N.Y. vote > > > The rural, upstate race highlights a split in GOP loyalties > > > ALBANY, N.Y. - Democrat Bill Owens has captured the special election for a > > > New York congressional seat that became a fight over the identity of the > > > Republican Party.
> > > Owens defeated Conservative Doug Hoffman and Republican Dierdre Scozzafava > > > in the heavily Republican 23rd Congressional District in rural northern > > > New York state. Scozzafava abruptly withdrew Saturday and supported Owens.
> > > Hoffman has conceded the race.
> > > With 88 percent of the precincts reporting, Owens had 49 percent of the > > > vote to 46 percent for Hoffman. Scozzafava had 6 percent.
> > > The race has been getting national attention, with some calling it a > > > referendum on President Barack Obama and others saying it could help > > > Republicans focus their message to attract more people to the party.
> > > Scozzafava abruptly quit the race over the weekend and backed Owens after > > > some prominent Republicans accused her of being too liberal for the > > > district because of her support of abortion rights and same-sex marriage.
> > > Hoffman started at a distant third and was viewed as a spoiler at best, > > > cutting away at Scozzafava and opening the door for Owens. But prominent > > > Republicans, including former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and > > > Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, endorsed Hoffman instead of the party-picked > > > Scozzafava.
> > > A Hoffman win could force Republicans in Washington to pay closer > > > attention to their votes and positions on issues, rather than counting on > > > the Republican label to get them elected.
> > > "The reality is that the grass roots is not going to walk lockstep on > > > these decisions and so that's a reality (the party is) going to have to > > > deal with," said Tony Fabrizio, a Washington-based Republican pollster and > > > strategist.
> > > An Owens win could signal renewed strength among Democrats, or at least > > > reassure them of Republicans' perceived weakness. It's a seat that has > > > been strongly Republican for decades and is one of only three in the > > > state's 29-seat delegation held by the party. Republican John McHugh > > > vacated the seat in September to become Army secretary.
> > it would have been better if Hoffman won. > > A victory have really emboldened the lunatic fringe and frightened the > > "mainstream" Repubnots. > > and have really messed up the party. > > The Dems are going to Gerrymander that district out of existance anyway and > > one extra vote in the house for the Dems is meaningless as they already have > > a majority.
> Pfft...If Hoffman won it would have been a huge PR boon for Palin and > her puppeteers Armey and Kristol. > Now? A Sarah endorsement brings a loss.
What I find interesting is the spin surrounding this. From what I read, a Dem endorsed by the Rep beat the "conservative" in a Rep district. To me, you cannot spin anything positive from this if you are a "conservative." However, as I read the news comments... amazing. It goes back to my acknowledgment of alternate realities. Some of the folks are really on other planets.
Also, is a Governor's race a referendum on the President? Huh? A Congressional race? Obviously. Governor's? Huh? When I vote for governor, the last thing I think about is how they are going to back or refute the President... because they cannot! Apples/Oranges. I don't understand how that logic works.
On Nov 4, 8:57 am, "kpnn...@yahoo.com" <kpnn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Also, is a Governor's race a referendum on the President? Huh? A > Congressional race? Obviously. Governor's? Huh? When I vote for > governor, the last thing I think about is how they are going to back > or refute the President... because they cannot! Apples/Oranges. I > don't understand how that logic works.
Apparently, at this point eight years ago, (two months after 9/11!), with Junior's approval ratings in the 80s, the Democrats won botht he governor's seats in ....NJ & VA!
What did the GOP tell us about these results?
NRCC Talking Point: "The 2001 Off-Year Elections Have No Bearing On Next Year's Mid-Term Elections. These Races Revolved Around Local Issues And Local Candidates. There Were No Discernable National Trends." NRCC Talking Points: "The 2001 off-year elections have no bearing on next year's mid-term elections. These races revolved around local issues and local candidates. There were no discernable national trends." [Hotline, 11/7/01]
RNC Comm. Director: "It's Laughable To Suggest That This Has Any National Implications." Hotline noted that, GOPers "downplayed the two defeats." RNC comm. dir. Trent Duffy: "It's laughable to suggest that this has any national implications." [Chicago Tribune, 11/7/01]
end quotes
& the implication on the next year's midterms? The Dems did badly for an out party. Of course, this was a prime "bang the drum against the terrist Dems" moment, in which they managed to defeat a triple amputee Viet Nam vet incumbent (Cleland) in GA with a chickenhawk (Chambliss).
Its hard to see the economy rebounding enough to be a cudgel against the GOP in that way; but maybe if the GOP nominates enough Hoffmans. ;-)
John Doherty wrote: > Apparently, at this point eight years ago, (two months after 9/11!), > with Junior's approval ratings in the 80s, the Democrats won botht he > governor's seats in ....NJ & VA!
> What did the GOP tell us about these results?
> NRCC Talking Point: "The 2001 Off-Year Elections Have No Bearing > On Next Year's Mid-Term Elections. These Races Revolved Around Local > Issues And Local Candidates. There Were No Discernable National > Trends." NRCC Talking Points: "The 2001 off-year elections have no > bearing on next year's mid-term elections. These races revolved around > local issues and local candidates. There were no discernable national > trends." [Hotline, 11/7/01]
> RNC Comm. Director: "It's Laughable To Suggest That This Has Any > National Implications." Hotline noted that, GOPers "downplayed the two > defeats." RNC comm. dir. Trent Duffy: "It's laughable to suggest that > this has any national implications." [Chicago Tribune, 11/7/01]
> end quotes
> & the implication on the next year's midterms? The Dems did badly for > an out party. Of course, this was a prime "bang the drum against the > terrist Dems" moment, in which they managed to defeat a triple amputee > Viet Nam vet incumbent (Cleland) in GA with a chickenhawk > (Chambliss).
> Its hard to see the economy rebounding enough to be a cudgel against > the GOP in that way; but maybe if the GOP nominates enough > Hoffmans. ;-)
> Hoffmania!
Interesting quotations, got a link? There's a couple of folks I'd love to show those to.
kpnn...@yahoo.com wrote: >> Pfft...If Hoffman won it would have been a huge PR boon for Palin and >> her puppeteers Armey and Kristol. >> Now? A Sarah endorsement brings a loss.
> What I find interesting is the spin surrounding this. From what I > read, a Dem endorsed by the Rep beat the "conservative" in a Rep > district. To me, you cannot spin anything positive from this if you > are a "conservative." However, as I read the news comments... amazing. > It goes back to my acknowledgment of alternate realities. Some of the > folks are really on other planets.
That the Repubs have taken over the old Democrat circular firing squad tactic strikes me as being significant. The woman who wanted to be VP endorsed a candidate from another party, as did other Repub leaders, if that isn't a big crack in party solidarity then what is? The Dems didn't win this seat, the Repubs lost it, and I see no reason to think there won't be more revolts in favor of right-wingnuts, more purges of insufficiently right-wing Republicans. Somewhere in a smoke-filled room the Democrats are figuring ways to encourage this process.
> Also, is a Governor's race a referendum on the President? Huh? A > Congressional race? Obviously. Governor's? Huh? When I vote for > governor, the last thing I think about is how they are going to back > or refute the President... because they cannot! Apples/Oranges. I > don't understand how that logic works.
> Kurt
It's politics, if Obama bought a Chrysler they'd be claiming that company's poor sales equates to the public's rejection of his policies.
> > Also, is a Governor's race a referendum on the President? Huh? A > > Congressional race? Obviously. Governor's? Huh? When I vote for > > governor, the last thing I think about is how they are going to back > > or refute the President... because they cannot! Apples/Oranges. I > > don't understand how that logic works.
My thoughts exactly!
> It's politics, if Obama bought a Chrysler they'd be claiming that company's > poor sales equates to the public's rejection of his policies.
Yes but, it is not just they the Republicans that are spinning the the referendum on Obama argument. It is also a large portion of the press and punditry. Who cares if they are biased one way or the other? The prevailing wisdom of the talking heads has a way of becoming the language of the whole debate and that wisdom is worse than flawed.
> > > > NBC News projects Democrat win in N.Y. vote > > > > The rural, upstate race highlights a split in GOP loyalties > > > > ALBANY, N.Y. - Democrat Bill Owens has captured the special election for a > > > > New York congressional seat that became a fight over the identity of the > > > > Republican Party.
> > > > Owens defeated Conservative Doug Hoffman and Republican Dierdre Scozzafava > > > > in the heavily Republican 23rd Congressional District in rural northern > > > > New York state. Scozzafava abruptly withdrew Saturday and supported Owens.
> > > > Hoffman has conceded the race.
> > > > With 88 percent of the precincts reporting, Owens had 49 percent of the > > > > vote to 46 percent for Hoffman. Scozzafava had 6 percent.
> > > > The race has been getting national attention, with some calling it a > > > > referendum on President Barack Obama and others saying it could help > > > > Republicans focus their message to attract more people to the party.
> > > > Scozzafava abruptly quit the race over the weekend and backed Owens after > > > > some prominent Republicans accused her of being too liberal for the > > > > district because of her support of abortion rights and same-sex marriage.
> > > > Hoffman started at a distant third and was viewed as a spoiler at best, > > > > cutting away at Scozzafava and opening the door for Owens. But prominent > > > > Republicans, including former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and > > > > Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, endorsed Hoffman instead of the party-picked > > > > Scozzafava.
> > > > A Hoffman win could force Republicans in Washington to pay closer > > > > attention to their votes and positions on issues, rather than counting on > > > > the Republican label to get them elected.
> > > > "The reality is that the grass roots is not going to walk lockstep on > > > > these decisions and so that's a reality (the party is) going to have to > > > > deal with," said Tony Fabrizio, a Washington-based Republican pollster and > > > > strategist.
> > > > An Owens win could signal renewed strength among Democrats, or at least > > > > reassure them of Republicans' perceived weakness. It's a seat that has > > > > been strongly Republican for decades and is one of only three in the > > > > state's 29-seat delegation held by the party. Republican John McHugh > > > > vacated the seat in September to become Army secretary.
> > > it would have been better if Hoffman won. > > > A victory have really emboldened the lunatic fringe and frightened the > > > "mainstream" Repubnots. > > > and have really messed up the party. > > > The Dems are going to Gerrymander that district out of existance anyway and > > > one extra vote in the house for the Dems is meaningless as they already have > > > a majority.
> > Pfft...If Hoffman won it would have been a huge PR boon for Palin and > > her puppeteers Armey and Kristol. > > Now? A Sarah endorsement brings a loss.
> What I find interesting is the spin surrounding this. From what I > read, a Dem endorsed by the Rep beat the "conservative" in a Rep > district. To me, you cannot spin anything positive from this if you > are a "conservative." However, as I read the news comments... amazing. > It goes back to my acknowledgment of alternate realities. Some of the > folks are really on other planets.
> Also, is a Governor's race a referendum on the President? Huh? A > Congressional race? Obviously. Governor's? Huh? When I vote for > governor, the last thing I think about is how they are going to back > or refute the President... because they cannot! Apples/Oranges. I > don't understand how that logic works.
It is odd logic, but nonetheless the correlation here is too strong to not suspect a causal link. From electoral-vote.com:
***********************
Virginia and New Jersey Follow Historical Pattern
Republicans Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie won their gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey, respectively. With stories spinning in all directions about the predictive value of yesterday's elections, perhaps a look at the historical record of the Virginia and New Jersey off-year elections will prove of interest. In all eight gubernatorial elections since Ronald Reagan's first term, Virginia has given the party of the incumbent President a loss. In New Jersey, the President's party has lost six gubernatorial elections in a row`. Here are the data.
Year President Virginia Winner New Jersey Winner Net House 2009 Barack Obama (D) Bob McDonnell (R) Chris Christie (R) ? 2005 George W. Bush (R) Tim Kaine (D) Jon Corzine (D) Dem +31 2001 George W. Bush (R) Mark Warner (D) Jim McGreevey (D) GOP +7 1997 Bill Clinton (D) Jim Gilmore (R) Christie Whitman (R) Dem +5 1993 Bill Clinton (D) George Allen (R) Christie Whitman (R) GOP +54 1989 George H.W. Bush (R) Doug Wilder (D) Jim Florio (D) Dem +7 1985 Ronald Reagan (R) Gerald Baliles (D) Tom Kean (R) Dem +5 1981 Ronald Reagan (R) Chuck Robb (D) Tom Kean (R) Dem +27
In both states, it seems pretty clear that the voters tend to show their disappointment with the new President by voting for the other party, no matter which party controls the White House. Most likely many people had some expectations from the newly (re)elected President, didn't see them satisfied and wanted to send the incumbent a message. The correlation (12 out of 12 and 14 out of 16) is too strong for just chance. This year's results should be interpreted in this light. While the results are not encouraging for President Obama, they are hardly surprising.
What about the predictive value of these elections? The House of Representatives midterm election the following year is probably the best metric since Senate elections are full of big names and partisan identification doesn't play as big a role there as in the House. The fifth column in the table above shows what happened in the House election in the year following the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races. Since 1982, the Democrats have swept both gubernational elections three times (1981, 2001, and 2005). In the House elections the year after, the Democrats experienced a small win, a small loss, and a big win. The Republicans also swept the two gubernatorial elections three times (1993, 1997, and 2009). In the midterms a year later they won big and lost small once each. So all told, sweeping the two governor's race gives you a 60% chance of picking up House seats the next year, hardly a sure thing. In short, the only pattern that seems constant over the years is the President's party doing badly in the two gubernatorial elections.
> That the Repubs have taken over the old Democrat circular firing squad > tactic strikes me as being significant. The woman who wanted to be VP > endorsed a candidate from another party, as did other Repub leaders, if that > isn't a big crack in party solidarity then what is? The Dems didn't win > this seat, the Repubs lost it, and I see no reason to think there won't be > more revolts in favor of right-wingnuts, more purges of insufficiently > right-wing Republicans. Somewhere in a smoke-filled room the Democrats are > figuring ways to encourage this process.
Rahm Emmanuel to the white courtesy phone........
I have been truly amazed at the disingenuous way that Obama has been playing Rush Limbaugh and FoxNews. On the surface, it looks as if he is a political neophyte playing right into their hands. Below the surface, he is indeed playing right into their hands, but it is a losing hand that they hold, and the longer the game goes on, the worse they look and the more Obama benefits. It's astonishing to see the subtlety of it playing out.
If only they were as good at governing as they are at politics......
Neil X wrote: >> DGD wrote: >> That the Repubs have taken over the old Democrat circular firing squad >> tactic strikes me as being significant. The woman who wanted to be VP >> endorsed a candidate from another party, as did other Repub leaders, if that >> isn't a big crack in party solidarity then what is? The Dems didn't win >> this seat, the Repubs lost it, and I see no reason to think there won't be >> more revolts in favor of right-wingnuts, more purges of insufficiently >> right-wing Republicans. Somewhere in a smoke-filled room the Democrats are >> figuring ways to encourage this process.
> Rahm Emmanuel to the white courtesy phone........
> I have been truly amazed at the disingenuous way that Obama has been > playing Rush Limbaugh and FoxNews. On the surface, it looks as if he > is a political neophyte playing right into their hands. Below the > surface, he is indeed playing right into their hands, but it is a > losing hand that they hold, and the longer the game goes on, the worse > they look and the more Obama benefits. It's astonishing to see the > subtlety of it playing out.
> If only they were as good at governing as they are at politics......
What's the difference between governing and politics ?
The nascent Obama administration has had many under the radar success stories already which have necessarily been overshadowed by the health care initiative. See this story from the WSJ:
> Neil X wrote: > >> DGD wrote: > >> That the Repubs have taken over the old Democrat circular firing squad > >> tactic strikes me as being significant. The woman who wanted to be VP > >> endorsed a candidate from another party, as did other Repub leaders, if that > >> isn't a big crack in party solidarity then what is? The Dems didn't win > >> this seat, the Repubs lost it, and I see no reason to think there won't be > >> more revolts in favor of right-wingnuts, more purges of insufficiently > >> right-wing Republicans. Somewhere in a smoke-filled room the Democrats are > >> figuring ways to encourage this process.
> > Rahm Emmanuel to the white courtesy phone........
> > I have been truly amazed at the disingenuous way that Obama has been > > playing Rush Limbaugh and FoxNews. On the surface, it looks as if he > > is a political neophyte playing right into their hands. Below the > > surface, he is indeed playing right into their hands, but it is a > > losing hand that they hold, and the longer the game goes on, the worse > > they look and the more Obama benefits. It's astonishing to see the > > subtlety of it playing out.
> > If only they were as good at governing as they are at politics......
> What's the difference between governing and politics ?
> The nascent Obama administration has had many under the radar > success stories already which have necessarily been overshadowed > by the health care initiative. See this story from the WSJ:
> I think you're right in that Obama is looking at the long haul.
Well, there was a long list of impressive accomplishments of the Obama administration posted here a few weeks ago, but a few things are bugging the hell out of me. First on the list is this:
The Obama administration has clung for so long to the Bush administration’s expansive claims of national security and executive power that it is in danger of turning President George W. Bush’s cover- up of abuses committed in the name of fighting terrorism into President Barack Obama’s cover-up.
We have had recent reminders of this dismaying retreat from Mr. Obama’s passionate campaign promises to make a break with Mr. Bush’s abuses of power, a shift that denies justice to the victims of wayward government policies and shields officials from accountability.
Monday, Oct 26, 2009 03:27 PDT NYT condemns what it calls "Obama's cover-up" A leading pro-Obama outlet says he "has clung to Bush's expansive claims of national security and executive power." By Glenn Greenwald
The New York Times Editorial Page has long been one of the most reliable and vocal pro-Obama outlets in the nation. When they endorsed him for President, they praised his "strength of will, character and intellect, sober judgment and a cool, steady hand," attributes they said he possesses in "abundance," and predicted he would provide "sensible leadership, compassionate leadership, honest leadership and strong leadership." Throughout this year, their praise of him has been fulsome and their criticisms rare and restrained. Most recently, they made numerous arguments as to why he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. I could go on, but I assume the pro-Obama bona fides of The New York Times Editorial Page are well established.
That's what makes this morning's scathing condemnation of Obama so notable. As suggested by the editorial's headline -- "The Cover-Up Continues" -- the NYT accuses Obama of complicity in shielding Bush war crimes from disclosure and accountability, and worse, details the numerous, radical Bush/Cheney powers embraced by Obama in order to accomplish this. It begins this way:
The Obama administration has clung for so long to the Bush administration’s expansive claims of national security and executive power that it is in danger of turning President George W. Bush’s cover- up of abuses committed in the name of fighting terrorism into President Barack Obama’s cover-up.
We have had recent reminders of this dismaying retreat from Mr. Obama’s passionate campaign promises to make a break with Mr. Bush’s abuses of power, a shift that denies justice to the victims of wayward government policies and shields officials from accountability.
The numerous examples provided by the NYT are all well-known to readers here. Contrary to the central straw man invariably raised by his defenders, none of the complaints is grounded in the objection that Obama "has failed to act quickly enough" to repudiate Bush/Cheney abuses. Let's repeat that: none of the criticisms of Obama from the NYT today -- or from civil libertarians generally -- is grounded in the complaint that he hasn't acted quickly enough. The opposite is true: the complaint is that he has actively and affirmatively embraced those very policies as his own -- the very policies which Democrats and liberals almost unanimously claimed for years they found so offensive and dangerous -- and he has vigorously defended them and repeatedly applied them in numerous circumstances.
[....]
All of this vividly underscores a vital point. There is simply no way that a person with even the most minimal levels of intellectual integrity could have objected to these actions during the Bush years yet defend them now that Obama is doing them, or even refrain from objecting just as loudly. What would it say about a person who spent years warning of the dangers posed by these very policies, yet found ways to excuse them now that there's a new President who is affirming and further institutionalizing them?
The fact that Obama has done good things in other areas or "is not as bad as Bush" in this realm doesn't negate that fact in any way. Those who were genuinely horrified by radical Bush/Cheney secrecy and immunity claims -- as opposed to those who pretended to care about those things because it was an effective Bush-bashing tool for partisan gain -- have no choice but to reach the conclusion which the NYT Editors today propounded: "The Obama administration has clung for so long to the Bush administration’s expansive claims of national security and executive power that it is in danger of turning President George W. Bush’s cover-up of abuses committed in the name of fighting terrorism into President Barack Obama’s cover-up."
>> > > > NBC News projects Democrat win in N.Y. vote >> > > > The rural, upstate race highlights a split in GOP loyalties >> > > > ALBANY, N.Y. - Democrat Bill Owens has captured the special election for a >> > > > New York congressional seat that became a fight over the identity of the >> > > > Republican Party.
>> > > > Owens defeated Conservative Doug Hoffman and Republican Dierdre Scozzafava >> > > > in the heavily Republican 23rd Congressional District in rural northern >> > > > New York state. Scozzafava abruptly withdrew Saturday and supported Owens.
>> > > > Hoffman has conceded the race.
>> > > > With 88 percent of the precincts reporting, Owens had 49 percent of the >> > > > vote to 46 percent for Hoffman. Scozzafava had 6 percent.
>> > > > The race has been getting national attention, with some calling it a >> > > > referendum on President Barack Obama and others saying it could help >> > > > Republicans focus their message to attract more people to the party.
>> > > > Scozzafava abruptly quit the race over the weekend and backed Owens after >> > > > some prominent Republicans accused her of being too liberal for the >> > > > district because of her support of abortion rights and same-sex marriage.
>> > > > Hoffman started at a distant third and was viewed as a spoiler at best, >> > > > cutting away at Scozzafava and opening the door for Owens. But prominent >> > > > Republicans, including former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and >> > > > Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, endorsed Hoffman instead of the party-picked >> > > > Scozzafava.
>> > > > A Hoffman win could force Republicans in Washington to pay closer >> > > > attention to their votes and positions on issues, rather than counting on >> > > > the Republican label to get them elected.
>> > > > "The reality is that the grass roots is not going to walk lockstep on >> > > > these decisions and so that's a reality (the party is) going to have to >> > > > deal with," said Tony Fabrizio, a Washington-based Republican pollster and >> > > > strategist.
>> > > > An Owens win could signal renewed strength among Democrats, or at least >> > > > reassure them of Republicans' perceived weakness. It's a seat that has >> > > > been strongly Republican for decades and is one of only three in the >> > > > state's 29-seat delegation held by the party. Republican John McHugh >> > > > vacated the seat in September to become Army secretary.
>> > > it would have been better if Hoffman won. >> > > A victory have really emboldened the lunatic fringe and frightened the >> > > "mainstream" Repubnots. >> > > and have really messed up the party. >> > > The Dems are going to Gerrymander that district out of existance anyway and >> > > one extra vote in the house for the Dems is meaningless as they already have >> > > a majority.
>> > Pfft...If Hoffman won it would have been a huge PR boon for Palin and >> > her puppeteers Armey and Kristol. >> > Now? A Sarah endorsement brings a loss.
>> What I find interesting is the spin surrounding this. From what I >> read, a Dem endorsed by the Rep beat the "conservative" in a Rep >> district. To me, you cannot spin anything positive from this if you >> are a "conservative." However, as I read the news comments... amazing. >> It goes back to my acknowledgment of alternate realities. Some of the >> folks are really on other planets.
>> Also, is a Governor's race a referendum on the President? Huh? A >> Congressional race? Obviously. Governor's? Huh? When I vote for >> governor, the last thing I think about is how they are going to back >> or refute the President... because they cannot! Apples/Oranges. I >> don't understand how that logic works.
>It is odd logic, but nonetheless the correlation here is too strong to >not suspect a causal link. From electoral-vote.com:
>***********************
>Virginia and New Jersey Follow Historical Pattern
>Republicans Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie won their gubernatorial >races in Virginia and New Jersey, respectively. With stories spinning >in all directions about the predictive value of yesterday's elections, >perhaps a look at the historical record of the Virginia and New Jersey >off-year elections will prove of interest. In all eight gubernatorial >elections since Ronald Reagan's first term, Virginia has given the >party of the incumbent President a loss. In New Jersey, the >President's party has lost six gubernatorial elections in a row`. Here >are the data.
>Year President Virginia Winner New Jersey Winner Net House >2009 Barack Obama (D) Bob McDonnell (R) Chris Christie (R) ? >2005 George W. Bush (R) Tim Kaine (D) Jon Corzine (D) Dem +31 >2001 George W. Bush (R) Mark Warner (D) Jim McGreevey (D) GOP +7 >1997 Bill Clinton (D) Jim Gilmore (R) Christie Whitman (R) Dem +5 >1993 Bill Clinton (D) George Allen (R) Christie Whitman (R) GOP >+54 >1989 George H.W. Bush (R) Doug Wilder (D) Jim Florio (D) Dem +7 >1985 Ronald Reagan (R) Gerald Baliles (D) Tom Kean (R) Dem +5 >1981 Ronald Reagan (R) Chuck Robb (D) Tom Kean (R) Dem +27
>In both states, it seems pretty clear that the voters tend to show >their disappointment with the new President by voting for the other >party, no matter which party controls the White House. Most likely >many people had some expectations from the newly (re)elected >President, didn't see them satisfied and wanted to send the incumbent >a message. The correlation (12 out of 12 and 14 out of 16) is too >strong for just chance. This year's results should be interpreted in >this light. While the results are not encouraging for President Obama, >they are hardly surprising.
>What about the predictive value of these elections? The House of >Representatives midterm election the following year is probably the >best metric since Senate elections are full of big names and partisan >identification doesn't play as big a role there as in the House. The >fifth column in the table above shows what happened in the House >election in the year following the Virginia and New Jersey >gubernatorial races. Since 1982, the Democrats have swept both >gubernational elections three times (1981, 2001, and 2005). In the >House elections the year after, the Democrats experienced a small win, >a small loss, and a big win. The Republicans also swept the two >gubernatorial elections three times (1993, 1997, and 2009). In the >midterms a year later they won big and lost small once each. So all >told, sweeping the two governor's race gives you a 60% chance of >picking up House seats the next year, hardly a sure thing. In short, >the only pattern that seems constant over the years is the President's >party doing badly in the two gubernatorial elections.
>*****************
>Peace, >Neil X.
One thing that's been missing from the post-mortems is just how bad a candidate Creigh Deeds was for VA governor. I mean, awful... stammerer, terrible debater, ran a very negative campaign, didn't propose a concrete game plan for VA issue #1, transporation. Other than those who were completely pre-disposed for voting for him (mostly folks voting the Dem party ticket), I don't see how he could get sizeable percentage of votes. This was a very deserved rout.
<everybody's.d...@that.rag.com> wrote: > On 2009-11-04 22:57:10 +0900, "kpnn...@yahoo.com" <kpnn...@yahoo.com> said:
> > Also, is a Governor's race a referendum on the President? Huh? A > > Congressional race? Obviously. Governor's? Huh? When I vote for > > governor, the last thing I think about is how they are going to back > > or refute the President... because they cannot! Apples/Oranges. I > > don't understand how that logic works.
> > Kurt
> I'm not anti-media, but ascribing these governors' races as a > referendum on Obama is politico-media wankery, nothing more, nothing > less IMO. The media need to have "something to say" and to "tell us > what it all means" about everything, in order to fill airwaves and > column inches and justify their existence, so to borrow a descriptor of > Limbaugh, they tend to bloviate.
I disagree. Look at the data I posted from electoral-vote.com. I can't see that being accidental.
>> I'm not anti-media, but ascribing these governors' races as a >> referendum on Obama is politico-media wankery, nothing more, nothing >> less IMO. The media need to have "something to say" and to "tell us >> what it all means" about everything, in order to fill airwaves and >> column inches and justify their existence, so to borrow a descriptor >> of Limbaugh, they tend to bloviate.
> I disagree. Look at the data I posted from electoral-vote.com. I > can't see that being accidental.
> Peace, > Neil X.
What strikes me about the media reaction is the imbalance between coverage of the Repubs winning a couple of governorships vs. the Dems winning a seat in a strong Republican district largely because of Repub in-fighting over the ideological purity of their candidate. IMO that the Repub base appears to be splintering somewhat is a significant development, probably of more consequence than the gubernatorial contests. But the media talking heads instinctively seize on the big headline, and in this case it's the Obama magic wearing off, so that's the story they covered.
> >> I'm not anti-media, but ascribing these governors' races as a > >> referendum on Obama is politico-media wankery, nothing more, nothing > >> less IMO. The media need to have "something to say" and to "tell us > >> what it all means" about everything, in order to fill airwaves and > >> column inches and justify their existence, so to borrow a descriptor > >> of Limbaugh, they tend to bloviate.
> > I disagree. Look at the data I posted from electoral-vote.com. I > > can't see that being accidental.
> > Peace, > > Neil X.
> What strikes me about the media reaction is the imbalance between coverage > of the Repubs winning a couple of governorships vs. the Dems winning a seat > in a strong Republican district largely because of Repub in-fighting over > the ideological purity of their candidate. IMO that the Repub base appears > to be splintering somewhat is a significant development, probably of more > consequence than the gubernatorial contests. But the media talking heads > instinctively seize on the big headline, and in this case it's the Obama > magic wearing off, so that's the story they covered.
Well, coverage of gubenatorial elections is always much more extensive than coverage of one Congressional seat. There are 435 Congressmen and only 50 state chief executives. So it isn't really surprising to me that the governor races in two states with a total population over 16 million gets a lot more attention than a legislative race in a district with a population under 500,000.
Neil X wrote: > Well, coverage of gubenatorial elections is always much more extensive > than coverage of one Congressional seat. There are 435 Congressmen > and only 50 state chief executives. So it isn't really surprising to > me that the governor races in two states with a total population over > 16 million gets a lot more attention than a legislative race in a > district with a population under 500,000.
> Peace, > Neil X.
The Congressional seat being in NY state raises its profile, as does Sarah Palin sticking her nose in, as does it being a solid Republican district surprisingly going to a Dem, as does the presence of a third-party candidate who appeared to have a chance of winning and especially that it revealed fissures in the Republican Party that could easily play a big role in upcoming elections. It seemed to me that the more thoughtful commentators paid attention to this race in NY, but the bulk of the media went with the easy story about the honeymoon being over for Obama, and in that I think the media were negligent.
> Neil X wrote: > > Well, coverage of gubenatorial elections is always much more extensive > > than coverage of one Congressional seat. There are 435 Congressmen > > and only 50 state chief executives. So it isn't really surprising to > > me that the governor races in two states with a total population over > > 16 million gets a lot more attention than a legislative race in a > > district with a population under 500,000.
> > Peace, > > Neil X.
> The Congressional seat being in NY state raises its profile, as does Sarah > Palin sticking her nose in, as does it being a solid Republican district > surprisingly going to a Dem, as does the presence of a third-party candidate > who appeared to have a chance of winning and especially that it revealed > fissures in the Republican Party that could easily play a big role in > upcoming elections. It seemed to me that the more thoughtful commentators > paid attention to this race in NY, but the bulk of the media went with the > easy story about the honeymoon being over for Obama, and in that I think the > media were negligent.
Huh. Well I can't really remember the last time any Congressional race got a significant amount of national press, except when someone spectacularly bad, weird or indicted was running. My take on it is that the governor's office was rightly the primary story, but that the spin on it has been overboard and should have been tempered by what happened in upstate NY.
> > That the Repubs have taken over the old Democrat circular firing squad > > tactic strikes me as being significant. The woman who wanted to be VP > > endorsed a candidate from another party, as did other Repub leaders, if that > > isn't a big crack in party solidarity then what is? The Dems didn't win > > this seat, the Repubs lost it, and I see no reason to think there won't be > > more revolts in favor of right-wingnuts, more purges of insufficiently > > right-wing Republicans. Somewhere in a smoke-filled room the Democrats are > > figuring ways to encourage this process.
> Rahm Emmanuel to the white courtesy phone........
> I have been truly amazed at the disingenuous way that Obama has been > playing Rush Limbaugh and FoxNews. On the surface, it looks as if he > is a political neophyte playing right into their hands. Below the > surface, he is indeed playing right into their hands, but it is a > losing hand that they hold, and the longer the game goes on, the worse > they look and the more Obama benefits. It's astonishing to see the > subtlety of it playing out.
> If only they were as good at governing as they are at politics......
> Peace, > Neil X.
They are not interesting in governing. They want to game the system so that their friends can get rich. To the Republicans, the rest of the US is just an unfortunate bunch of ankle-biters, when they aren't scamming cash from them. Thus, propaganda is a cost of doing business. It would be great if this could all be unmasked. We need a "That'll hold the little bastards for another week," moment.
Edwin -- If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies. -Moshe Dayan
|
