The Biggest Election Myths of 2010

WSJ ^ | OCTOBER 29, 2010 | Kimberly Strassel

[SmokingJoe]

The idea that lower taxes and less spending are 'extreme' positions says far more about the accusers than the GOP.

If on Election Day voters hear tales of frolicking unicorns, flying pigs and President Obama walking on water, don't worry. Consider them more myths of the 2010 campaign season.

Elections are about who wins. But the months leading up to elections are also about laying out a narrative. The more a party is losing, the wilder its explanations. The less the press identifies with the winning side, the more it presents them as fact. That's why 2010 has already had its fair share of political fairy tales.

Let's dissect a few:

• A GOP House, courtesy of Tajikstan. Did you know that sinister corporations are flagrantly violating federal law by spending campaign money from foreign entities? President Obama doesn't, but he's leveled the charge anyway. And did you know that had these corporations and GOP "Super Pacs" not entered the race, Democrats would be winning? "Everything was going great and all of a sudden secret money from God knows where—because they won't disclose it—is pouring in," explained House Speaker Nancy Pelosi last weekend.

Everything was going so swell that Chris Christie became the first Republican to win statewide in New Jersey in 12 years, a no-name Republican swept up Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, and Americans discovered a new reality TV series: YouTube Town Hall. Democrats have been in serious electoral trouble since mid-2009, yet they kept passing political death bills. Corporations aren't buying a GOP majority; President Obama's agenda is.

[SmokingJoe]

Here's a key fact of 2010: The biggest political spender of this cycle is, as usual, a union (the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, at $90 million). Another overlooked fact: Democrats are floating in money. A recent study by the nonpartisan Center for the Responsive Politics reports that Democrats in competitive districts have raised 47% more than Republicans and spent 66% more. They're losing for lack of credibility, not dollars.

• It's a Mad Mad (Mad-Menless) World. Mr. Obama recently explained he was so busy passing his agenda he forgot to "advertise" its benefits. "We didn't have time to unpack it," echoes David Axelrod. And not only are Americans ill-informed—the president explains they are too "scared" to think straight.

One or two Americans presumably managed to avoid every one of Mr. Obama's 344 days of public interaction his first year—including 42 press conferences, 158 interviews, 23 town halls and seven campaign rallies. The rest haven't, and that's the Democrats' real problem. A recent Public Opinion Strategies poll found 89% of Americans familiar enough with "ObamaCare" to rate it on a positive/negative scale. A majority said an "acceptable" outcome of this election would be repeal. Don Draper couldn't sell this turkey.

[beckysueb]

I have heard rumors that Obama is hanging on to that money for his 2012 election battle.

[Morpheus2009]

A recent study by the nonpartisan Center for the Responsive Politics reports that Democrats in competitive districts have raised 47% more than Republicans and spent 66% more. They’re losing for lack of credibility, not dollars.

Which explains why they complain against campaign finance reform (as if they really cared anyways). This point that the Democrats are far more highly funded needs to get emphasized to death, if needs be.

[meadsjn]

I have heard rumors that Obama is hanging on to that money for his 2012 election battle.

I heard rumors that Omama is hanging on to that money for his escape to some unnamed muslim elclave. Maybe he'll just go AWOL during this India jaunt.

If Obama has any kind of 2012 election battle, it'll be for control of some cannibal muslim tribal warlord thingee, in some strange far away place.

[southernnorthcarolina]

Here's a big 2010 election myth I heard repeated last week by no less a figure than Rush Limbaugh: Getting control of the Senate doesn't matter much as long as there's a Democrat in the White House; what matters is getting 60 Republican Senators, so that vetoes can be overridden.

I don't often disagree with Rush -- at least on matters of content; his style can be tiresome -- but he's dead wrong here. A majority in the Senate, no matter how thin, even given the presence of a few RINOs, would be massively important.

The majority party, for one thing, controls all Senate Committees. Committees are where bills are born, and perhaps more importantly with Obama still President, where bills die. Other than a motion to adjourn, the most important motion in Roberts Rules of Order is a motion to table. If by some chance the Republicans can get a majority in the Senate (as has been noted, we're drawing to an inside straight, but stranger things have happened), there'll be a whole lot of tabling going on, and that would be a good thing.

[CARTOUCHE]

What matters is getting 60 Senators period. You think that after this drubbing there just might be a few Dem Senators facing re-election in ‘12 that will side with the Reps to override a veto? I’d bet money on it.

The first order of business for the ‘12 election should be to find Conservative opponents for the primaries to combat the likes of Snowe job and her compatriots so as to solidify the R bloc in the Senate.

[beckysueb]

Yep. He was born in Kenya, a dirt poor, backward third world country surrounded by dirt poor, backward third world countries. I’m thinking Zulus and voodoo.