Author Topic: Anti-Incumbant?....try Anti-Socialist  (Read 834 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Anti-Incumbant?....try Anti-Socialist
« on: May 31, 2010, 06:10:01 AM »
Serious Democratic analysts concede it's their party that's facing trouble in the fall.
By FRED BARNES

The hordes are not massing at the gates of Washington?not yet. They won't arrive until after the midterm congressional election in November. Most are likely to be Republicans, a good number of them old Washington hands. Yesterday's primary elections, including the impressive victories of Republican Rand Paul in Kentucky and Democrat Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania, didn't change that.

The idea that anti-incumbent fever, striking equally at Democrats and Republicans, is the defining feature of the 2010 election is as misguided as last year's notion that President Obama's oratory would tilt the nation in favor of his ambitious agenda. Yet the media, echoing the Obama White House, has adopted anti-incumbency as the all-purpose explanation of this year's political developments.

Their latest (supposed) evidence: Mr. Sestak's ouster of incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter. But incumbency, though it played a part, wasn't the main reason Mr. Specter (who switched parties from Republican to Democrat last year) lost. After voting against the 80-year-old Mr. Specter in five elections dating back to 1980, a majority of Democratic voters in Pennsylvania couldn't bring themselves to vote for him yesterday. They didn't trust him.

Mr. Sestak, a House member since 2006, played on this sentiment. He was the "real" Democrat, Mr. Sestak insisted, while Mr. Specter was an imposter. Recognizing that Mr. Specter might be vulnerable, the White House leaned on Mr. Sestak to stay out of the primary. Mr. Sestak stubbornly refused.

Nor was Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas forced into a runoff with Lt. Gov. Bill Halter yesterday because she's an incumbent. A bigger problem for her was a reputation as an unreliable vote for Democratic initiatives?Mr. Halter attacked her from the left?and polls consistently showed her badly trailing any Republican opponent.

It's true that anti-incumbency was marginally responsible for the defeats recently of three-term Republican Sen. Robert Bennett of Utah and 14-term Democratic Rep. Alan Mollohan of West Virginia. Voters do at times get tired of elected officials. But Mr. Bennett lost chiefly because he was seen as having "gone Washington" and too eager to compromise with Democrats. Mr. Mollohan was defeated by a conservative opponent more in tune with the state's drift to the right over the past decade.

What demolishes the notion of anti-incumbency as a scourge on both parties are the calculations of credible political analysts?Democrats and Republicans from Charles Cook to Jay Cost to Nathan Silver to James Carville?about the outcome of November's general election. They believe dozens of congressional Democrats either trail Republican challengers or face toss-up races, while fewer than a handful of Republicans are in serious re-election trouble.

Even Gallup, hardly known for its bold analysis of polling data, doesn't appear to regard anti-incumbency as a problem for Republicans. Its current surveys indicate Republicans are likely to trounce Democrats in November.

"Republicans have had a significant turnout advantage in midterm elections," Gallup said. "This means . . . Republican candidates would most likely receive a higher percentage of the actual votes cast [and] would also be virtually guaranteed major seat gains, possibly putting them in range of recapturing majority control of the U.S. House."

In Dr. Paul's defeat of Trey Grayson in the Kentucky Senate primary, he benefited from anti-Washington and anti-establishment feelings rampant across the country. Mr. Grayson, Kentucky's secretary of state, was the favorite of Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, and suffered for that. Like Mr. McConnell, he defended earmarks. Dr. Paul, who'd never before run for office, is an eye doctor in rural Bowling Green and the son of Ron Paul, the renegade Republican congressman and presidential candidate from Texas. He denounced earmarks.

But there was more to his 59% to 35% victory than simply exploiting popular trends. Dr. Paul was by far the better candidate. He kept his most controversial views?opposition to the Iraq war, doubts about sending American troops to Afghanistan?largely under wraps. Instead, he sounded like a vintage 1994, Contract-with-America Republican, calling for term limits and a balanced budget amendment.

And Dr. Paul wasn't shy about his support from tea party activists. They turned out to be anything but a stigma on his campaign, contrary to their characterization in the media. Without their fervent backing, he might have lost. That should be a lesson to other Republican candidates.

Republicans suffered one significant setback on Tuesday. Their polling suggested they might win the special election to fill the House seat of the late Democratic Representative John Murtha. The heavily Democratic district wraps around Pittsburgh in western Pennsylvania. A victory there, Republicans figured, could foreshadow a Republican landslide in the fall.

But their candidate, businessman Tim Burns, lost badly to Mark Critz, a former Murtha aide. Mr. Burns failed to stir Republican turnout with his anti-Obama message. In contrast, Democratic turnout was buoyed by the furious Senate race between Mr. Specter and Mr. Sestak. Republicans insist the mix of voters will be different in the fall. We'll see.

If there's a Republican wave in November, Republicans will capture the Senate seats in Kentucky and Arkansas and probably in Pennsylvania as well. The most important political event of the week may have been the revelation that the Democratic Senate candidate in Connecticut, the state's Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, had falsely claimed to be a Vietnam veteran. That gives a Republican a chance to win in Connecticut, too?and maybe even a Senate majority.


or Anti-Obama, if you wish
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Anti-Incumbant?....try Anti-Socialist
« Reply #1 on: May 31, 2010, 06:16:43 AM »
It's not 'anti-incumbency' ? it's 'anti-liberalism'
Posted: May 20, 2010

The story line goes like this: Recent elections find voters in an angry, "anti-incumbent" mood.

Time magazine wrote: "This is how it goes in 2010 at the ballot box: old orders are upended, political lions become roadkill, chosen successors get left behind and the outsider, riding a wave of discontent, becomes the new front-runner."

The Associated Press wrote: "It's an anti-Washington, anti-establishment year. And candidates with ties to either better beware. Any doubt about just how toxic the political environment is for congressional incumbents and candidates hand-picked by national Republican and Democratic leaders disappeared late Tuesday."

No. Voters said: "It's not the incumbents, stupid. It's how they voted. It's what they stand for." No incumbent who voted against the Bush/Obama bank bailouts, the "stimulus" package and Obamacare lost his or her job.

Voters hate the bank bailouts.
They hate the government takeover of car companies.
They do not believe that the $800 billion stimulus package stimulated anything but bigger government.
They reject Obamacare and think it's costly and likely to worsen health care.
Incumbents who voted for these things now face the music.

Democrats are breathing a sigh of relief that Mark Critz ? Democrat and former staffer of the late Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa. ? won the special election to succeed Murtha. But the pro-life, anti-gun control Critz said he would have voted against Obamacare. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda of higher taxes, more spending and bigger government.

At their convention in Utah earlier this month, Republicans dumped incumbent and TARP supporter Sen. Bob Bennett, who also cosponsored a health care bill that smelled a lot like Obamacare. In Arkansas, another TARP supporter, Sen. Blanche Lincoln, must go through a June runoff election against a Democrat who painted her as a buddy to Wall Street banks. Calling Lincoln "Bailout Blanche," her opponent, Lt. Gov. Bill Halter, attacked her for taking contributions from Wall Street firms that received bailouts. He called TARP a cozy "Washington and Wall Street" arrangement that allows financial firms to fill "their pockets with insider deals and stick Arkansas families with the bill."

In March, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, R-Texas, lost her party's nomination for governor. Her opponent, incumbent Gov. Rick Perry, called her "Kay Bailout" over Hutchinson's vote for TARP. A Republican libertarian won the GOP primary for Senate in Kentucky.

In Florida, Republicans dumped Gov. Charlie Crist in the primary race for Senate. Crist, in a photo used against him by his opponents, hugged President Barack Obama. He supported the stimulus package. He also supported Obamacare, a plan rejected by Florida voters, who, according to a Rasmussen poll, favor its repeal 62 percent to 33 percent. His tea-party-backed opponent, Marco Rubio, former speaker of the Florida House, portrayed Crist as insufficiently fiscally conservative.

In Arizona, former Republican presidential candidate John McCain finds himself in a primary dogfight against former Rep. J.D. Hayworth. McCain did a 180 on "immigration reform" and now supports the new Arizona anti-illegal alien law. McCain famously "temporarily suspended" his presidential campaign during the Wall Street meltdown and voted for the widely unpopular bank bailouts.

The message is clear.

Obama and the Democrats misread the 2008 elections, misunderstood the mood of the people and pursued an agenda voters neither expected nor wanted. Voters, unlike Democrats and many Republicans, reject the idea that financial firms deserve a taxpayer-paid rescue because they are "too big to fail."

The No. 1 issue to voters remains the economy. Unemployment sits at nearly 10 percent. Voters think the stimulus either stimulated nothing or had no effect other than spending hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money. Two-thirds of those polled, according to the Pew Research Center, do not believe the stimulus created jobs. Seventy-nine percent of Republicans think it did nothing to create jobs. And only a slim majority of Democrats, 51 percent, think the stimulus helped to produce jobs.

On Obamacare, Democrats assumed that after its passage, voters would gradually come around to supporting it. They haven't. A recent Rasmussen poll of likely voters finds that 56 percent want it repealed, versus 39 percent who oppose repeal.

Voters see this administration as a bunch of leftist, redistribute-the-wealth, we-know-better-how-to-spend-your-money-and-run-your-lives-and-manage-your-businesses, smug busybodies. They see an administration that raised the debt and deficit in a year and a half to European-like levels that threaten present and future prosperity. They see an administration that believes fighting global warming takes precedence over jobs and productivity.

Tax revenues have plummeted, while government continues to grow. Banks and other companies that made bad bets or failed to effectively compete are propped up through bailouts that encourage future risky behavior.

People have been out of work for long periods of time. Homeowners are paying on homes worth less than their mortgages. There is a lot of hurt and pain and fear in the streets.

"We Are All Socialists Now," said Newsweek in a cover story last year. "No," say the voters. "We are not."


The message is clear.

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Anti-Incumbant?....try Anti-Socialist
« Reply #2 on: May 31, 2010, 12:47:01 PM »
I am a bit dissapointed in the Elders of the Republican party , who disreguarded the import of the "contract with America".

If the Contract had been kept in its entirety it would have included term limits to revolutionise the Congress and Senate , none of those guys would have kept the job till now.

I like that idea still.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Anti-Incumbant?....try Anti-Socialist
« Reply #3 on: May 31, 2010, 03:11:58 PM »
100% agreed. 

Why they let go of the script that put them in power in the 1st place is.....well, I can only speculate that "power" brought them a Dem-lite sense of obligation.  How best can "I" get re-elected?...yea, promise all kinds of things to my consituents, with all this Federal revenue...they'll like me, and keep me employed.  All the while forgetting what got them employed as majority power in the 1st place
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Anti-Incumbant?....try Anti-Socialist
« Reply #4 on: June 01, 2010, 06:12:02 PM »
Republicans Jump Out To Historic Lead In Gallup Generic Ballot
Posted by Sean Trende

Gallup's generic polling shows the number of voters saying that they would vote for Republicans rising three points from last week, while the number saying they will vote for Democrats dropped four points.  The 49%-43% lead for the Republicans is the largest that the pollster has ever recorded for the party.  Moreover, Democratic enthusiasm for voting this fall fell a point, while enthusiasm among Republicans stayed about fifteen points higher.  This indicates an even wider lead for Republicans once Gallup imposes a likely voter screen this fall.

There's any number of reasons for this:  the public's perception of Obama's response to the oil spill, the shaky stock market performance last week, continued concern about the economy and spending.  The bottom line is that, despite what is perceived as an underperformance for the Republicans in PA-12 a couple of weeks ago, there are still plenty of Democrats in trouble for this November.


Republicans best not get complacent.  There's a reason there's such a backlash, and hint, it not his skin color
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Anti-Incumbant?....try Anti-Socialist
« Reply #5 on: June 01, 2010, 11:04:39 PM »
Republicans best not get complacent. 


Right ! If given the reigns again will they piss away all oppurtunitys to make positive change?

Will the emphaisis be on pork or on national service?

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Anti-Incumbant?....try Anti-Socialist
« Reply #6 on: June 02, 2010, 12:09:36 AM »
The emphasis BETTER be to continue the drive to responsible government, spending within its means, and by god, repealing as much of this Obama socialist/fascist garbage as they can, starting with pledges to defund Cash for Croakers
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle