Republicans already working on post election loss spin...

The Bright Side Of Repudiation

By: Joe Conason
Date: 11/6/2006
Page: 5

Stricken with anxiety as the polls continue to indicate a Democratic resurgence, certain Republicans have started spouting justifications and explanations for their party’s possible eviction from office. No matter what may happen on Election Day, they say, the results must not be taken at face value—because liberal Democrats can only prevail by pretending to be right-wing Republicans.

Among the first to test out this excuse in recent days was Laura Ingraham, the hard-line radio and TV talker who insisted that the defeat of Republican candidates would somehow represent a triumph of her ideology. What she told CNN’s Larry King on Oct. 30 is worth examining, if only because we will surely hear more of the same in the days to come from other sources—and because those same claims are already surfacing in the political coverage of The New York Times.

In other words, the reactionary spin is once more set up to turn into the conventional wisdom.

To prove her point, Ms. Ingraham cited three highly competitive Senate races: Pennsylvania, where Democratic nominee Bob Casey Jr. is expected to defeat Republican incumbent Rick Santorum; Tennessee, where Democratic Representative Harold Ford Jr. was in a dead heat with Republican Bob Corker, the former Mayor of Chattanooga, until the Republicans aired a racially polarizing TV commercial; and Virginia, where the underfunded Democratic challenger, James Webb, is bidding to upset Republican incumbent George Allen.

According to Ms. Ingraham, “Whether it’s [Bob] Casey in Pennsylvania or Harold Ford Jr. in Tennessee, or even James Webb in Virginia, all these Democrats are running fairly conservative campaigns.” That’s because Mr. Ford says he loves Jesus, and Mr. Casey says he opposes abortion, and Mr. Webb worked for President Reagan two decades ago.

Such simplistic notions are perfect for cable TV, but why would the Times political desk propagate them? In a feature blazoned across the front page that same day, the newspaper of record offered a strikingly similar analysis, which was based chiefly on a few relatively conservative Democrats running for Congress in what the headline described as “Key House Races.” Heath Shuler, a former football player, is the Democratic challenger in a North Carolina district where he surprised nobody by confiding that he likes hunting and dislikes abortion. Brad Ellsworth, the Democratic nominee in an Indiana district represented by a Republican, likewise disdains abortion and boasts about his “A” rating from the National Rifle Association. And Democratic candidate Mike Weaver presents himself the same way in rural Kentucky, of all places.

Supposedly, these candidates prove that the Democratic Party has repented its liberalism and recognized conservatism as the only route to restored influence. The appeal of this argument to conservatives is obvious, for it allows them to claim a specious victory even when their party loses.

It has only one defect, which is that it evaporates instantly upon closer inspection.

In Pennsylvania, Mr. Casey’s conservatism on abortion is offset by his strong liberalism on economic issues, and by the evident public revulsion against his far more conservative opponent. In Virginia, Mr. Webb’s switch to the Democratic Party has been emphasized by his social and economic populism, and by his courageous refusal to endorse a state ballot initiative banning gay marriage. He’s a libertarian progressive, not a conservative. As for Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina and Indiana, what is new about conservative Democrats seeking office in those deep-red states?

Choosing other states as bellwethers provides even more evidence of conservative decline and progressive revival. In Montana, long a bastion of political conservatism in the West, veteran Republican Senator Conrad Burns may well lose his seat to an organic farmer named Jon Tester. Nobody should be misled by Mr. Tester’s flattop hairstyle: He’s a tough progressive who defeated a more centrist, establishment Democrat in the primary. In Missouri, another solid red state, Democrat Claire McCaskill is running a progressive campaign emphasizing her commitment to stem-cell research. In Ohio, where Republicans won the last two Presidential elections, the outspoken progressive Democrat, Representative Sherrod Brown, is considered likely to oust the incumbent Republican Senator, Mike DeWine. In Kansas, Republican officeholders are deserting their party to run as Democrats because they’re appalled by the right-wing radicalism dominating the G.O.P.

Who wins and who loses, where and why, may tell us whether voters are moving leftward and away from the rightist hegemony of the past six years. What a Democratic midterm victory in either house will surely mean, however, is that Americans are appalled by the manifest failures of President Bush and his one-party conservative government, both at home and abroad.

Only a torrent of popular anger can overcome the inherent advantages of incumbency, money, organization and gerrymandering. But if such a tide engulfs the Republicans, their rickety ideology will sink with them.

http://www.observer.com/printpage.asp?iid=13628&ic=Conason

 

Who wins and who loses, where and why, may tell us whether voters are moving leftward and away from the rightist hegemony of the past six years.

Good God, Its the Iraq War Stupid, throw in some demagoguery about "stem-cell bans" from dying popular hollywood stars and you got yourself a landslide.

We already know the Democrats spin should they loss. They'll shake the very foundations of our government by making baseless accusations about how the "Elections Were STOLEN!". The count may still be within the margin of error, but they'll go on and on and on, for all the world to hear, even while "Democracy is on the March", that our elections are fraudulent and criminal. Without Proof, Of Course.

The Democrats are where they've been working to be ...

They capitalized on the "long, hard, slog" we were warned of, undermined our national resolve, and wore people out with their hysterical shrieking and rhetoric about "Dangerous incompetence"... even while Most of these clowns voted for the war ...

For the record, I hope they take one of the houses ... I'd say the House of Representatives, but "house speaker Nancy Pelosi" is a phrase I don't want to hear in my lifetime.

 

They captilized on the "long, hard, slog" we were warned of
Was "Mission Accomplished" the warning you're talking about? Or was it Rumsfeld's claim that the war would last maybe six days, maybe six weeks, hardly six months? Or was it the promise that we'd be greeted as liberators? Or was it the assurance that the insurgency was in the last throes?


their hysterical shrieking and rhetoric about "Dangerous Incompentence"
Are you serioiusly saying this administration is competent?

even while Most of these clowns voted for the war ...
Actually all republicans and democrats who voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up WMD were clowns. But more than half of the democrats voted against the resolution.

 

i. So you agree? They captilized on the problems in Iraq effectively?

No one paying attention believed this was going to be easy, even after the "Mission Accomplished" photo-op. This is an incredibly ambitious foreign-policy move. A friendly Iraq? Risk/Reward.

ii. "Dangerously Incompetent" is a reference to the sign Nancy Pelosi brought down the House floor and gave a speech while standing next to. This isn't my idea of fair play and talk about fear-mongering. (I can't count the number of times I've heard "hitler this", and "nazi that" over the past 3 years ...)

"We Support the Troops!", ... yeah, just continue to convince them that their commander in chief is Hitler incarnate, they are participants in an illegal war and their enemies are freedom-fighters.

iii. agreed. But a guy like Kerry is despicable. It's a very simple task to drum up reams of rhetoric from all these jokers declaring Saddam our most dangerous threat, they voted for the war, then immediately undermined our efforts. Our falling behind in Iraq means their winning these elections.


The Democrats are positioned well. And I stand by that prediction that the Democrats will cry "The Election Was Stolen!", should the they lose. It's standard operating procedures at this point.

 

i. So you agree? They captilized on the problems in Iraq effectively?
If pointing out that we were lied into the war, that it is a distraction from the war on terror, that it was conducted in the most arrogant, ignorant and incompetent manner possible, that the situation in Iraq is a quagmire and that civil war is already underway, if pointing out all that is called "capitilizing on the problems" then yes, they certainly did. I always thought that's what the role of the opposition party (and free media) is though.

No one paying attention believed this was going to be easy, even after the "Mission Accomplished" photo-op.
So what did you do when Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and Co kept lying to the country that it would be easy? If it was so obvious to you from the beginning what did you personally do to stop the lies? You know perfectly well that the answer is nothing, vice versa republican,s rightwingers, people like you kept spreading those lies.

ii. "Dangerously Incompetent" is a reference to the sign Nancy brought down the House floor and gave a speech while standing next to.
You did not answer my question, do you find this administration competent and if you don't why are you upset that Pelosi's sign says the same thing you do?


"We Support the Troops!", ... yeah, just continue to convince them that their commander in chief is Hitler incarnate, they are participants in an illegal war and their enemies are freedom-fighters.
Strawman.


iii. agreed. But a guy like Kerry is despicable.
As I said, half of the dems voted against the resolution, all republicans voted for it.

 

So really what Joe Conanson is saying is that voters should be smart enough to realize that democrat candidates are lying when they espouse moderate positions. When they get to Washington, they will be marching behind Nancy Pelosi.

This is the democrat version of the dance republicans use on evangelical Christians.

 

If Republican incumbents were doing their job, then they would not be voted out of office...

Doh!

Let the republican spin begin...

Oh wait, it already has...

 

why is nobody here talking about those idiotic voting machines - they are still there - so how could the reps evere lose this election??

no matter what the polls tell - next week all of a sudden - reps are probably going to win again - and nobody knows how come.

whatever results those machines put out - you will have to believe them - so...

or what??

 

Agreed.

 

Bush the Dragonslayer


In the Victor Davis Hanson post Polipundit links to below Hanson asks:

'what is it about George Bush that seems to reduce once sober and experienced liberal pros to infantile ranting?"

And that is a great question which to me has a clear answer: This supposed “idiot” has consistently beaten his “smart” Democratic foes like a drum since he began his political career in earnest.

Here is a bit of history:

In the 1958 election Democrats won 14 Senate and 48 House seats.
In the 1974 election Democrats won 4 Senate and 49 House seats.
In the 1986 election Democrats won 8 Senate (control of the chamber) and 5 House seats.
In 1938, FDR, one of the undisputably best politicians in American history, saw his party lose 6 Senate and 76 House seats.
Simply put, Bush drives these people crazy because he has beaten them soundly and will again next week.

-- The Ace
________________________________________________


Almost no president in the last 75 years has had the mid-term election success that Bush has had and will continue to have. We may not agree with him on everything but his ability to drive the libs literally crazy makes up for any grievances.