The more one digs into Tuesday’s election results, the worse they look for Democrats.  Let’s start by reviewing once again the three high profile races: New York’s 23^rd Congressional District special election, and the gubernatorial in New Jersey and Virginia.

The Democrats have to know that NY-23 was a fluke – they can’t count on gross Republican miscalculation in 2010.  Meanwhile, Democratic efforts to write off the New Jersey and Virginia losses by blaming them on bad candidates simply don’t ring true. 

In Virginia, Creigh Deeds was not a bad candidate.  In the primary, despite being vastly outspent, he hammered the powerful Terry McAuliffe.  He had the endorsement of the Washington Post, which argued that of three strong Democratic primary candidates, in the general election, “Deeds’ moderate platform would have the broadest appeal.”  On liberal blog sites, Deeds was the overwhelming favorite as the best candidate, the one most likely to win the general election.  

Jon Corzine was not a bad candidate, either – he could self-fund his race, an enormous advantage, and outspend any opponent 3 to 1, as he did to Chris Christie.  He had been elected statewide twice before.  What Corzine was, was a bad governor.  And why was he a bad governor?  Because he followed the same type of policies that the Democrats are now pursuing on a national level.  Maybe someone will notice that.

It has been noted lately that the Democrats plan to hold on next fall is to go negative, and to do so early – to “vaporize” opponents, as Harry Reid says.  But that is exactly what both Deeds and Corzine tried to do.  Corzine, who won by 11 points in 2005, lost by 4 this year.  Deeds, who lost to the same man in the attorney general race 4 years ago by fewer than 350 votes, this time lost by 18 percentage points.  Meanwhile, President Obama embraced and campaigned with both men.  Yet McDonnell won by the biggest margin for a Republican ever, and Christie by the largest margin for a Republican in 24 years.  Thus, the Democrats’ two key strategies to hold on in 2010 (other than pray for a better economy) failed miserably – Obama couldn’t save them, and relentlessly negative campaigning couldn’t save them.  These men were not bad candidates, as their past success and praise for them suggests – rather, they were running on bad issues in a time in which Democrats are increasingly blamed for the nation’s difficulties.

In the other Congressional special election, California’s 10^th District, Lt. Governor  John Garamendi won by 11 points after heavily outspending his opponent in a district won by his predecessor in 2008 by 34 points, in which Democrats have an 18 point edge in voter registration, and which Obama carried by 31 points.  Not much to crow about.

Down ballot, in races for lower offices, including state legislatures and mayors, it gets worse. 

Read More →

Today, in editorializing about Scozzafava’s collapse, the normally astute editors of The Wall Street Journal join the ranks of those chronically infatuated with equating the supposed extremism of the right with that of the left. This apples-to-oranges nonsense is made only worse by the editors’ absurd acceptance of the “litmus test” argument about supposed conservative rejection of those who don’t “agree with them on every issue.”

Unfortunately, this kind of analysis is something that could be found in a not-so-good high school student newspaper, and is deserving of some questions for the WSJ editors:

First, please name any major conservative politician, pundit, talk radio show host or blogger who has ever seriously said – or even implied – that a Republican candidate need agree with them on every issue. Please be specific.

Second, who is it – specifically – that is as “bloody-minded and intolerant of all dissent as the hard left is at the Daily Kos,” and on what issue or issues in particular? Because comparing a conservative’s intolerance of politicians who fail to support our soldiers, or who appease terrorists, or who confirm extreme activist judges, or who constantly embrace big government spending, or who support economy-killing environmental policy, or who “negotiate” a form of socialized medicine… with those on the left’s intolerance of those who don’t do enough of these things is absurd.

Third, which “right-wing blogger or talk show host” prefers “having Democrats in power because it drives up their own ratings,” specifically? Rush? Sean? Levin? RedState? National Review Online? Who?

Fourth, who is calling for a candidate in Illinois, California or Connecticut to sound like Tom DeLay, specifically? And, what if some conservative did? Which specific principles, issues, or policies advocated by Mr. Delay would be worthy of trading for a coveted congressional or senate seat?

Fifth, Democrats did not drive Joe Lieberman out of the party in any practical sense. He still caucuses with them and still votes with them on most issues not involving middle east policy. And even if the ant-war left crazies did force him to run as an Independent Democrat, how is that comparable to the Hoffman-Scozzafava situation? Scozzafava isn’t even close to a Republican much less a conservative. Lieberman was the Democrats’ VP candidate just 6 years prior to his switch. He is – on most issues – liberal.

This is the fallacy of the “litmus test” argument. It’s ridiculous to suggest that having even a bare minimum of standard of a belief in liberty, limited government, fiscal responsibility, strong national security, respect for life, American exceptionalism and a general sense of getting the government to leave us the hell alone is some kind of litmus test.

Until conservatives stop comparing that which is not comparable – and stop trying to “make nice” in an environment where our way of life is under attack – the Republican Party and the health of our nation will flounder.

If you work for a man, in Heaven’s name work for him. If he pays wages that supply you your bread and butter, work for him, speak well of him, think well of him, and stand by him, and stand by the institution he represents.

Thus begins the Apologia to “A Message to Garcia”. It would behoove Pete Sessions and John Cornyn, head of the NRCC and NRSC respectively, to heed this message. These individuals seem to have forgotten just who pays the bills and funds these committees. And to be clear, that would be THE BASE.

Slip-shod assistance, foolish inattention, dowdy indifference, & half-hearted work seem the rule; and no man succeeds, unless by hook or crook, or threat, he forces or bribes other men to assist him…

Those words were written 110 years ago, yet are wholly applicable to our current situation. The NRSC and NRCC seem to be embracing these things rather than avoiding them.

It is not as if the base hasn’t made their complaints known, ever hear of “Not One Red Cent“. On the contrary, upon hearing the complaints the NRSC has treated them with dowdy indifference to say the least. To the credit of the NRCC they did create the Young Guns program, but as mentioned above “half hearted work seems the rule”.

When will Chairmans’ Sessions and Cornyn remember that character matters…

Well he’s a fine accountant, but if I’d send him up town on an errand, he might accomplish the errand all right, and on the other hand, might stop at four saloons on the way, and when he got to Main Street, would forget what he had been sent for.

Can such a man be entrusted to carry a message to Garcia?

Can we now trust you to run our errands, bypassing the saloons. Or, should we come to expect the continued stench of gin on your breath and failure at the ballot box?

If put to the pinch, an ounce of loyalty is worth a pound of cleverness. If you must vilify, condemn, and eternally disparage, why, resign your position, and when you are outside, damn to your heart’s content.

You have both been to clever for your own good and are quickly outlasting your usefulness.

Remember these words dear Sirs…

In every store and factory there is a constant weeding-out process going on.

[...]

No matter how good times are, this sorting continues, only if times are hard and work is scarce, the sorting is done finer - but out and forever, the incompetent and unworthy go.

[...]

Self-interest prompts every employer to keep the best - those who can carry the message to Garcia.

The process has begun, our collective dander has been raised and we demand answers. Will you step down so that we may make room for our own Rowan?

It is not book-learning young men need, nor instruction about this and that, but a stiffening of the vertebrae which will cause them to be loyal to a trust, to act promptly, concentrate their energies: do the thing - “Carry a message to Garcia!”

Aaron B. Gardner.