.

As you probably know, there are three races going on today which have captured the interest of the politicians, media, and of course the voters. In case you’ve been glued to your Game Boy they are the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial and a New York Congressional races. It appears that the Republicans may take both gubernatorial races and a Conservative, who is more Republican than Independent, may take the NY race. Of course since the Dems are behind they are minimizing the national importance of the races. And because the Repubs may accomplish a hat trick, they are playing up the importance. Me, yeah, I think they are important but as a third party champion, I am playing closest attention to the NY race. I have opined earlier on this race expressing concern regarding Hoffman but not enough concern to stop me from contributing to his campaign. Since that post things have changed considerably, but before I go into that let’s look at what the Dems and Repubs are saying about the races.

From the huffingtonpost.com by David Sirota dated 11/02/2009 entitled “Today’s Alleged “Bellwether” Elections Aren’t Bellwethers & Don’t Say Much About Nat’l Politics” (see source for additional links):

I appeared on CNN American Morning yesterday to discuss today’s highest profile elections. You can watch the segment here — I tried to make the point that while these elections are important, and while the Democratic Party certainly has its problems right now, these contests do a better job of illustrating severe Republican weakness than anything else right now. {LOL, spoken like a true a Democratic political strategist, political operative, and Democratic spokesperson.}

Karl Rove and the Beltway Punditburo are busy trying to tell us all why the three big elections today — the Virginia gubernatorial, the New Jersey gubernatorial, and the New York special congressional election — are a referendum on President Obama and the progressive agenda, and a bellwether for future elections. While Chris is absolutely right in saying that the national Democratic Party clearly has some issues it needs to work through, the idea that these three races are big-time commentaries on progressivism itself is is just plain moronic – even for a Washington chattering class that is made up mostly of morons. {Spoken like a true progressive.}

Virginia has long been a conservative, Republican-leaning southern state, and it is coming off four successive statewide wins by Democrats (Warner for Governor, Kaine for Governor, Webb for Senate and Warner for Senate). On top of that, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Creigh Deeds, has run a pretty lackluster general election campaign, making the strategically stupid decision to run away from Obama. For all these reasons, Virginia’s gubernatorial race was bound to go for the Republicans in 2009. Indeed, if this race is even close I’d say it’s a reflection that Virginia Republicans are incredibly weak.

New Jersey has always been a much more “purple” place in statewide elections than the Punditburo would have you think. Twelve years ago, New Jersey had a Republican governor. In 2004, John Kerry managed just 52 percent of the vote in the state. In 2005, Jon Corzine racked up only 53 percent of the vote in his run for governor. Add that stealth swing quality to the fact that A) Corzine is a former Goldman Sachs CEO running in the shadow of a Wall Street meltdown and B) high-profile New Jersey Democrats like Bob Torricelli and Jim McGreevey did their level best to ruin the Democratic Party’s name in the Garden State, and it’s amazing Corzine is even running close.

Finally, when it comes to the supposed “bellwether” special election in New York’s 23rd district, everyone seems to forget what the ultraconservative Weekly Standard quietly admits: This seat has been held by Republicans for 138 years. The idea that a district that has been in GOP hands since the end of the Civil War is some sort of telltale gauge of national trends is absolutely laughable – especially when you consider that, as In These Times notes, organized labor has been split between the Democratic and Republican candidate. Again, in a state where high-profile Democrats like Eliot Spitzer and David Paterson haven’t exactly helped their party image, the real news here is that a Democrat has even managed to put up a serious fight — not that Republicans might hold onto a seat they’ve controlled for more than a century. {Ah, excuse me, but I think the race is now between a conservative Independent and the Democrat. This makes it interesting!}

Now, I’m not saying these races aren’t important unto themselves — they are. Virginia and New Jersey are some of the biggest states in the country, and who controls their state government has real consequences for millions of people living there. Additionally, all congressional races are important in how they affect the overall control of the U.S. House.

But again, when has-been bloviators like Karl Rove claim with a straight face that Republican victories in these races would mean “support for Obama’s policies is risky to the political health” of Democrats all over the country, they just discredit themselves by ignoring the undeniable facts.

Indeed, if there is real cause for electoral/political concern for Obama and the national Democratic Party, it is the opposite of Rove’s thesis — namely, that Democrats may not fulfill the progressive promises they made, not that they have fulfilled them too aggressively. {Guess your toast is buttered on the left side, eh?} Polls (see here and here for examples) are starting to suggest that with the economy is still hurting, that health care reform may be watered down and that Wall Street reform is being gutted by financial lobbyists could create a NAFTA-style effect in the mid-term elections – that is, it could drive down turnout/enthusiasm among millions of progressives who thought they voted for change in 2008.

That Rove and so much of the Punditburo refuse to acknowledge this reality and instead forward this fantastical story about today’s elections being a pro-Republican “bellwether” is to be expected. More and more of the political prognostication industry has been taken over by biased shills who are wielding a partisan axe. {An you are not? LOL!} But the objective truth is clear: {According to Sirota?!} Democrats certainly have some weaknesses and problems, but the fact that Democrats are even competing in these supposedly “key” races suggests Republicans have their own — and arguably far bigger — weaknesses and problems as well. {I will definitely agree with that statement!}

Now let’s take a look at the NY Congressional race. I was between Owens (D), Scozzafava (R), and Hoffman (C). Hoffman started his campaign late and as a relative unknown because he (and other conservatives) were not happy with the Republican candidate that the party machinery put before the people. Scozzafava, as a left leaning Republican, supported gay marriage, the Democrats’ stimulus package and card check legislation among other issues which have historically, ok, years ago, defined the Republican party. Apparently Scozzafava trailed so badly in the polls that last week she bowed out of the race, of course blaming those nasty conservatives.

What is interesting regarding Scozzafava bowing out of the race is that she then threw her support to the Democrat, Owens. So you see people, voting for a ‘liberal’ Republican just because they are a Republican subverts conservative ideals. You might as well vote for the Democrat.

What is most interesting to me is what Newt Gingrich (remember his mid-90’s ‘Contract with America’ which went no where) said: “This idea that we’re going suddenly to establish litmus tests, and all across the country we’re going to purge the party of anybody who doesn’t agree with us 100 percent — that guarantees Obama’s reelection.” There you have it. Newt, bought and paid for by the left. Gingrich, you are no longer fooling anyone. Scozzafava was a long way from 100 percent and neither is Hoffman, but for a conservative to vote for Scozzafava just because she was ‘Republican’ is the height of insanity, i.e., going the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Wake up, America! Vote third party!!

The following are a couple more articles on the three races which might interest you.

From breitbart.com dated 11/01/2009 entitled, “Republicans eye Obama revenge in off-year elections“:

Republicans are looking to wound President Barack Obama’s Democrats on Tuesday in three closely fought elections seen as barometers of a vital battle for Congress in 2010.

In the governor’s race in Virginia — where Obama caused a sensation last year in becoming the first Democratic presidential contender to win since 1964 — Republican Bob McDonnell looks set to defeat Democrat Creigh Deeds.

New Jersey’s Democratic governor Bob Corzine, meanwhile, faces a nail-biting finale in an ugly race against former Republican prosecutor Chris Christie, who is vying to overturn the state’s traditional Democratic form.

A smaller but intriguing contest takes place in New York State’s 23rd congressional district, where an outsider from the tiny Conservative Party could win an upset after campaigning to the right of the official Republican candidate.

The results will be closely watched — and spun — by both sides as a test of Obama’s standing one year after his election and of the Republican Party’s progress in returning from the political cold.

While little depends directly on Tuesday’s outcome, the races are an opening salvo in 2010 midterm elections, when the entire House of Representatives, a third of the Senate and two thirds of gubernatorial posts are up for grabs.

A solid Democratic performance — winning in New Jersey and New York — would steady Obama’s party at a time of bitter, partisan debate over health care, the recession and the war in Afghanistan.

However, Republican victory in New Jersey and the swing state of Virginia, as well as possibly New York, would hand the beleaguered GOP an important morale boost, University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato said.

“If the GOP should win both New Jersey and Virginia, then there will be a longer and more pro-Republican spin put on the off-off-year elections, and the commentary will last longer — possibly enabling Republican candidate recruiters for 2010 to score some big catches,” Sabato wrote on the Politico news website.

Obama and the Democrats are in a popularity slump 12 months after seizing control of Washington in the 2008 general election.

But Republicans have yet to show they have found a formula for their own future — not just in 2010, but when it comes to the grand prize of the White House in 2012.

An internal struggle over whether to focus on the party’s conservative base or to move to the center has been laid bare in the New York congressional race.

Big Republican guns, including rightwing darling Sarah Palin and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, broke ranks with their own hierarchy to support the Conservative, Doug Hoffman.

They argued that the official Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, was too centrist and that Hoffman was closer to the party’s core values.

The civil war ended dramatically on Saturday when Scozzafava withdrew from the race, as polls showed her in a distant third place, while Hoffman was neck and neck with Democrat Bill Owens.

Scozzafava’s traumatic departure gave Hoffman a real chance of defeating his Democratic rival. But not all Republicans are happy.

GOP grandee Newt Gingrich, a former speaker of the House of Representatives, lambasted the way colleagues punished Scozzafava for not conforming to the party’s right wing.

“This idea that we’re going suddenly to establish litmus tests, and all across the country we’re going to purge the party of anybody who doesn’t agree with us 100 percent — that guarantees Obama’s reelection,” Gingrich told the Fox News Channel.

Some Republicans, however, see their party successfully harnessing disenchantment over Obama, with first blood ready to be drawn Tuesday.

“Tuesday’s election will provide the most tangible evidence so far of how strong a backlash is building and just how frightened centrist Democrats should be of 2010,” former president George W. Bush’s strategist Karl Rove wrote in the Wall Street Journal.

And from foxnews.com dated 11/03/2009 by Sean Hannity entitled, “Scozzafava’s Defection Creates Uproar“:

GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava’s departure from New York’s 23rd congressional race is causing an uproar among Democrats.

Scozzafava is a liberal Republican who supports gay marriage, the Democrats’ stimulus package and card check legislation. Her membership in the party shows just how broad the GOP is, but that’s not what the Democrats are now saying.

They’re using her exit from the race to accuse the party of ideological extremism. Now take a look at this exchange between Obama mouthpiece, Valerie Jarrett and ABC’s George Stephanopoulos:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS: What does it say about where the Republican Party leadership is?

VALERIE JARRETT, WHITE HOUSE SENIOR ADVISER: Well, I think it’s becoming more and more extreme and more and more marginalized.

All right, news flash: Valerie, Scozzafava dropped out of the race because nobody wanted to vote for her. That has nothing to do with GOP extremism and everything to do with the people’s preferences. Now you probably don’t remember, but that’s what elections are all about.

To Red Pills home page. This article, excluding the material cited or the material which is included herein but written by other authors or material covered by other copyrights, is copyright © 2009, by Gary Shumway. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s web site www.redpills.org is included. (Email notification is requested.) All other rights reserved.
Gary Shumway is the author of Winging Through America and SCUBA Scoop.