Friday, November 5, 2010

Crazy Candidates - UPDATE

A co-worker and I were discussing the election on November 1st. The conclusion: "If the GOP wins 65 seats they'll say that if it hadn't been for Palin they'd have won 66." Same kind of sentiment with regards to the Senate. Apparently the largest gains in recent GOP history aren't enough. If Palin would just go away we could have more!

As far as I'm concerned the GOP should be on its knees humbly thanking their Maker for another chance. Either do it right this time or hit the highway for good as far as I'm concerned. Trust has been broken.

I'm satisifed with the election results. Re-taking the Senate was not something I wanted anyway. I want the GOP to stay hungry. What did we gain, 6 seats? I think it was 6. I don't think we lost any.

The WaPo has taken it upon itself to bemoan the GOP's election losses:

Even a vast political victory does not change an iron law of politics: The quality of candidates matters. Serious, mainstream Republican Senate candidates could have won in Delaware and Nevada. But Christine O'Donnell was not serious. And Sharron Angle - warning of "Second Amendment remedies" in case of political loss - was not mainstream. Weak, poorly vetted Senate candidates were the main reason that while Republican gains in the House were historic - the largest in 72 years - gains in the Senate were not.

O'Donnell and Angle were gifts of Sen. Jim DeMint and Sarah Palin to their party. Tea Party enthusiasm and shallow ideological purity were supposed to be better than outdated, "establishment" attributes such as achievement, wisdom or qualification. This approach to politics is expected of DeMint, who has gained national prominence by accusing his Republican colleagues of compromise. Coming from Palin, however, it is a threat to the Republican future.

Ah, yes. That achievement, wisdom and qualification that lead us to brilliant proposals like cap and trade.

O'Donnell and Angle were gifts of DeMint and Palin? I don't know DeMint's political history so I won't get into that, but I will address the Palin aspect.

Palin never endorsed Angle in the primary. She didn't endorse anyone in the primary, although her Dad and brother stumped for Danny Tarkanian. After the primary who was she supposed to support, Harry Reid? I will be the first to say that Angle made mistakes, but that's what happens when you're a rookie candidate. The Tea Party has brought many political newbies to the forefront, and they're just getting started. They'll be back.

As for O'Donnell, Palin endorsed her I think a few days before the primary. I'm all for crediting Palin for her endorsement power, but the truth is that O'Donnell probably would have beaten Castle anyway. O'Donnell was then facing an uphill battle for Joe Biden's old seat in a deep blue state against everyone, including Republican organizations who would have left her hung out to dry entirely if it had not been for the rage of the party base at that idea.

Mr. Gerson assumes that if we had run Mike Castles in Nevada and Delaware that they would have won. How he knows this is anybody's guess, but my personal opinion is that we've already got a couple moderate RINO headaches to deal with. Definitely don't want one more named Mike Castle.

Gerson continues:

Palin's support for O'Donnell showed poor political judgment. But Palin went further, also endorsing Constitution Party gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo in Colorado, one of the most divisive figures in American politics.

Gerson will note that Colorado's governorship went to a Democrat. After winning the Republican primary, Dan Maes went on to implode with people un-endorsing him left and right. Endorsing Tancredo was a last-ditch attempt to save the Governor's mansion from the Dems. It didn't work anyway. The Democrat got 51%, Tancredo came in second with 37% and Maes got a whopping 11%. Even if Maes and Tancredo had morphed into one guy the Democrat still would have won. I'm sure someone can find some way to blame Palin for that too.

I seem to recall President Obama praising left-wing nut Alan Grayson as an outstanding member of Congress last year. Grayson lost by 18 points to Palin endorsee Daniel Webster last Tuesday. I wonder when Gerson will write an article about Dems concerned about Grayson or Pelosi and Obama's support for them.

The whole thing is silly. When it comes down to it you rally around your teammate, no matter how "nutty" the media makes them out to be (unless they're truly insane with people locked in their basement).

Yes, Gerson, quality of candidate does matter. That I will agree with. Now please explain to me how Mr. "This War is Lost" Reid is of better quality than Sharron Angle or Christine O'Donnell.

Hindsight is 20/20. Conservatives will evaluate their performances this year, figure out what worked and what didn't and come back later even stronger. In the meantime, for Pete's sake, we did great. Don't get bogged down by the two or three losses. You can't win 'em all.

At least all this talk of extremism gives me an excuse to watch this video again:

UPDATE: RAM (Rebecca Mansour who works for Palin) pretty much confirms my explanation of the Angle and Tancredo situations on Twitter:

FTR: Palin didn't endorse anyone in the NV GOP Senate primary.But she got behind Angle when she won - just as all good conservatives should.

FTR: Palin endorsed Tancredo days before the election (when the GOP candidate was polling at 5%).

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Media Malpractice Re-Release

John Ziegler was on the Bob and Mark Show this morning talking about his documentary on the media coverage of Obama vs. Palin in 2008. It's about to be re-released and is now available on satellite as Video on Demand. Direct TV has it for sure, supposedly through April of next year. You can find it in their listings. If you haven't seen it yet, I would encourage you to watch it on demand as it's cheaper than buying the DVD. But I'm not sure what all the VOD presentation will include. Probably just the movie itself. I doubt it will have the special feature of Ziegler's entire, unedited Palin interview which is on the DVD.

Anyway, he had a fun conversation with Bob and Mark:

I know Ziegler gets a little crazy sometimes, but I'll keep promoting the movie because it is a nice takedown of the media in 2008. He even includes a section on the Katie Couric interview. I highly recommend it.

Website here -

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

The Election

Well, the results are in, most of them anyway.

First off, I want to say that this is the first time I've ever actually gone to the polls in a general election. Before I've always had to do absentee or early. It was kinda cool.

For once I'm actually pretty proud of Wisconsin (channeling Michelle Obama). Doyle is out!! Woot!! Scott Walker is in. I don't know much about Walker. He's famous in another part of the state, but the people I know from that part of the state say he's fantastic. Here's hoping that he cleans up that cesspool in Madison. They describe him as a kind of Chris Christie without the in-your-face attitude or the big gaping liberal holes.

Ron Johnson made it too. My guy didn't win for Congress though. Oh, well. It was kind of a long shot that he would anyway.

As for the rest of the country, I'm satisfied. Won the House, not the Senate, exactly like I hoped. Palin's candidates did pretty well. A few major bummers like Jackie Walorski. I was hoping she would get it. Ruth McClung lost too, but she came really close considering the Democrat district she was running in. Last I saw she only lost by 2 points. That's pretty amazing. I still think there's a future for that girl.

Ayotte won big time! So much for Palin killing off her chances. O'Donnell lost, but I don't think that's a huge surprise. Exit polls show Castle would have lost too, so whoopde. I clung to a shred of hope that Christine could pull it off, but it was a long shot.

California elected Jerry Brown. LOL!!! Now that's funny. From a safe distance in a state far away, I have to say I'm getting ready to enjoy the show. The man is a fruitcake.

I wish Fiorina could have pulled it off, but if California would elect Brown (I mean, really???) then I don't think there was much hope for anybody but Boxer. (Brown, really???)

Nevada though gets my head shake of the evening. With unemployment through the roof you seriously voted back in Harry Reid? I expect that kind of reckless behavior from CA, but the land of the casinos? You couldn't take a chance on Angle?

On the bright side, we'll have "Dingy Harry" to kick around for another few years.

It looks like a chunk of Alaska Democrats voted for Murkowski. I don't think that race will be decided for awhile yet, but it doesn't look good for Miller at this point. Oh, well. Hope he pulls it off, but he really caught lightning in a bottle when he won the primary. Lisa's supporters stayed home before because no one thought he had a chance. They weren't going to make the same mistake twice, and McAdams was a weak enough candidate that Dems were willing to vote for Lisa just to screw Miller.

That's my theory anyway. I could be wrong. I know people will start saying this means Alaska rejects Palin or whatever, but I know a couple of guys who were leaning Murky, one was definitely supporting Murky, and these guys are also big Palinistas. Do the names "Bob and Mark" ring a bell?

Let 'em spin it however they want. What we got out of this was a revelation of what Lisa is really made of, and it ain't pretty. That alone was worth the price of admission.

But, I'm going off the assumption that he lost. Like I said, we won't know for awhile yet.

All in all, a good day. Lost some, won a lot. Lots of great people headed for Congress. Rand Paul, Sean Duffy, and Allen West just to name a few. This is going to be fun.