Posted on 11/08/2005 8:26:52 PM PST by jveritas
Others noted that Forrester did slightly better than Schundler in 2001 in NJ Govs race. Corzine is dirty, but he's also filthy rich and basically bought the election against a GOP candidate who was too moderate to hit hard on non-character issues... The GOP has major problems with the pro-choice / pro-life divide in that state.
As for VA, if the GOP statewide candidates won the other offices, it just tells us that Kaine was the better candidate, and/or Warner coattails. That's no trend.
Meanwhile OHIO news is good, and marriage is safe in Texas, 74% for preserving traditional marriage.
Liberal dems need to ponder being on the opposite side of 3/4ths of the voters on an issue like gay marriage before the declare victory.
I agree. I think Kaine was a better packaged candidate. Kilgore is a good guy but lacked the fight to win this. He did hit Kaine on illegal immigration but it was too little too late. The horrible part is both governorships should've been wins for the GOP given the McGrevey mess and Corzine's corruption but caution always loses the race and especially in Kilgore's case it was lack of a clear message and the inability to define his opponent.
I'll tell you what. If there's a Supreme Court decision between now and 2006 concerning abortion or homosexuals and it goes the wrong way thanks to Alito or Roberts, the Republicans WILL lose big. It will be a nightmare.
and the irony will be that all of us will be screaming for harriet meiers.
Black and white thinking.
If you don't see that there's more than just win/lose to an election, then you don't understand politics. One minute you blast oolatec, and I wonder if next minute you complain about RINOs, without realizing the election connection.
Funny how so many FReepers understand the free market makes prices a sliding scale, yet don't realize that a political party will put forth candidates it thinks can win. If conservative influence weakens, it doesn't necessarily mean fewer Republican victories, but can merely mean that the candidates put forth are less conservative! I don't mean to rain on the parade at all, but realistic assessment is important. If we pretend we don't get RINOs in Congress in such situations, then we'll be wondering why we're so weak with a majority party and not seeing what must be adjusted. We'll be out of the mainstream without realizing it.
Actually, I have no problem with the prophets of doom and gloom. After all, fear can be a strong motivator.
Prophets give a reason. Fear mongers try to demoralize. Big difference. Truth is, in the 06 elections the pubs are in fairly good shape for a mid-term election. As in all things, it will take work.
I don't recall Kilgore promising a single tax cut. If he did, I missed it. We've had way too many tax increases in Virginia, and the legislature is RINO, spending money like a drunken sailor or a sober Bush. I still thought Kilgore would win despite all that. Now I realize that taxes are just as important as social issues. Best not to tamper with the Reagan Formula for Success. FRegards....
So is Forrester. There was no financial edge.
http://www.nj.com/newsflash/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-17/1131506346274960.xml&storylist=jersey
"and the irony will be that all of us will be screaming for harriet meiers."
No way. If Alito turns out bad, if Roberts turns out bad, we'd learn something about Bush, wouldn't we? And his Miers choice would only back up that suspicion, not to mention she helped Bush select justices.
On the other hand, if Alito and Roberts turn out good, then Miers is partly vindicated for helping Bush select justices.
New Jersey is anything but a bell weather state. And I'm beginning to wonder about my own state of Virginia. Our state level politics is scandalous, IMHO. They raid funds all the time. There was a big pension scandal. There was a big road fund scandal. I was lulled into thinking things would get better here. I thought Warner would get some of the blame for all our problems. Nah. And VA governors are so weak, Warner doesn't deserve much criticism. Nor does a Virginia governor deserve much credit for anything, either. They're kind of like cashiers at restaurants. The cooks are the ones to keep an eye on, not the cashiers.
I've been AXing around: did Kilgore promise a tax cut? Did he promise to cut spending? Did he vow that heads would roll over our outrages financial scandals?
I think it's like that all over. My uncle worked in TN gubmint for years and said it's as corrupt as anywhere you will find. It's the same all over.
The Democrats have another thing coming if they believe this election is good news for them as a harbinger for 2006.
There was a consistent theme that ran strongly through every election yesterday: Status Quo.
Republicans retained Republican seats, Democrats retained Democrat seats, propositions to change or create new laws all failed, and traditional marriage was reaffirmed.
Every single issue went status quo, with the exception of local down ticket races where Republicans took Democrat seats. This does not signal a public that wants to shake things up much, which is what Democrats really need to win in 2006. It is pretty clear that there is not going to be a Democat version of the Reagan Revolution riding in on the heels of the anti-Prop 13, or a national push to "throw the bums out" that swept in Newt Gingrich's Republican Revolution.
Sorry, Dems, but it looks like we're going to be in for more of the same for a long time to come. The public spoke loud and clear "keep things the way they are!"
You reason like a northeast Republican.
Why would we want to take George Allen out of the senate?
Replacing an elected VP with a non-elected one could easily lead to another Gerald Ford disaster. And its just plain bad for democracy.
Bush shouldn't be taking sides in the 2008 GOP nomination process. Besides, VPs make terrible presidential candidates. Review the history. The few sitting VPs who actually get elected always are one-termers.
Nixon was defeated as a sitting VP. Truman and Johnson both came in because of death, and both knew better than to run for a 2nd elected term and lose. Bush 41 was a one-termer. Gore and Mondale and Ford all lost.
Former governors tend to be two-termers. Congressmen have the worst luck of all.
Personally, I'm liking Mitt Romney. He's working for Republican causes like traditional marriage, the death penalty, and immigration. He's articulate and looks presidential. He's also proved he can win even a Democrat heavy state as Massachusetts. Yes, he's marginally pro-choice, but so was Reagan and Bush Sr. before they entered national politics. Romney is personally opposed to abortion, and I expect to see him begin modifying his stance after he is re-elected in 2006.
KEY difference. I don't believe the demoralizers are on our side for one minute.....
I've been thinking about how the MSM has set this election up as a harbinger of '06 and '08 with the gubernatorial elections in NJ and VA...........and how it's not really a bad thing. If the left gets false confidence....... which they will...... because of these two elections (neither of which were surprising), and the right gets more motivated, it will end up being a positive.......because it will make us work even harder.
If you want a real indicator of how much the left has obtained its goal in this election, take a look at Soros' Issues 2-5 in Ohio.
Since Bush solidly took our state (you're welcome America!), the left has been trying to wrest the election, and in these issues future elections, out of the hands of the people and into the hands of leftist special interest groups.
They bombed out BIG time. And it makes me very happy. :)
I meant to ping you to post 36, counterpunch.
You're absolutely right. I think 2006 is the GOP's to lose at this point. The Rats have nothing concrete to offer, other than "Not Bush," and we all know how well that worked last year (and in 2002.) Let them get overconfident...it will make their fall and chagrin all the more satisfying.
Why are YOU spreading doom and gloom today? How are you any different than oolatec?
No he didn't. It was his mistake. He didn't challenge his real opponent Mark Warner on his record tax increase that turned out to be entirely unnecessary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.