Our Task Moving Forward: Focus On Congress

Irrespective of the outcome of the presidential primaries, it is highly unlikely that we will nominate a reliable and consistent conservative.  Unfortunately, with the exceptions of Coolidge, Goldwater, and Reagan, we never do.  Not on a presidential level.  This year we might nominate someone who is not a conservative at all.  Perforce, our most important task going forward (aside for defeating Obama) is to win majorities in both houses of Congress.

What is even more essential is that we elect enough reliable conservatives – ones who will keep their campaign pledges – that we will not be relegated to the minority in those majorities.  With the prospect of electing an unpredictable Republican president, in conjunction with tepid leadership in Congress, it is vital that we choose Republicans who will stand on principle, not benchwarmers who will merely serve as yes-men for leadership.

Last year, many of us thought we achieved a historic breakthrough by electing 87 “Tea Party” freshmen.  Undoubtedly, many of them have been stalwart fighters for liberty and the limited government principles that buoyed them into office.  Unfortunately, many of them voted for the debt deal and every single spending bill, in violation of multiple campaign pledges.  Indeed, many of them are anything but Tea Party leaders.
One of the unwavering and indefatigable members of the freshmen class, Mick Mulvaney, had this to say about his fellow rookies:

“I would be embarrassed to tell you how many folks ran saying that they weren’t going to spend a bunch of money, they weren’t going to raise the debt ceiling, and then they went to Washington, D.C., and did exactly that.” My dad told me something long before I was in politics, and when your dad gives you advice every single day, eventually one or two of the things stick in your mind. And he said, don’t believe what people say, believe what they do.”
“We cannot have another experience like we’ve had in my freshman class, of people saying one thing and doing another.”

Thus, despite Republicans winning control of the House, we are still a minority in the majority.
We must internalize this lesson and commit ourselves to harness any opportunity to elect a steadfast conservative.  We have very little time this year because all of the primaries have been moved up for the presidential election.  There are many solid conservative districts with members who supported every solitary sellout of the legislative session.  The disappointment of the presidential election is serving as my inspiration to highlight these races in the coming weeks.  Hopefully, you will share that inspiration as well.

For now, there are some clear winners in the Senate races.  Here is a list to build on:

We Need More Fighters in Congress

You can't win a war without warriors

“We all know which ones have been fighting hard to keep their campaign promises and which ones have remained stealth senators following the rudderless lead of Senator McConnell.”

The defeat of Ron Johnson for a leadership post in the Senate should serve as a wakeup call to conservatives.  Despite our hard work during the 2010 elections, we have not done enough to elect conservative warriors to Congress.

Too many people assume that we have successfully flushed the Senate of liberal Republicans, with the exception of a few senators from the northeast.  The truth is just the opposite.  With the exception of a few fighters such as DeMint, Paul, Lee, Toomey, Johnson, Rubio, and a handful of others, we have no one who is willing to fight day and night to reverse the inexorable tide of statism.

While there are only a handful of true RINOs, members who consistently vote with Democrats, the lion’s share of the conference is satisfied to merely support Mitch McConnell’s uninspiring incrementalism to nowhere.  Even though some of our most intrepid conservatives were elected as part the 2010 freshman class, we also elected a new crop of McConnell benchwarmers such as Boozman, Hoeven, and Portman.  While we were focused on the high-profile intra-party fights in blue and purple states, we ceded precious ground in solid red states.

To be clear, the mainstream of the Republican conference, the McConnell loyalists, are not RINOs.  We may even assume that they intuitively understand that free-market conservatism is what is best for the country.  However, they are not fighters.  They don’t wake up every morning and promise to dedicate themselves to the advancement of constitutional conservative principles.  They wake up in the morning and determine the best way to play it safe and continue being….just another Republican senator.  Either they simply lack the mettle to fight for their convictions or they believe that their convictions are political liabilities.

The Disgrace of MD Democrats' Gerrymandering

This week, the Maryland state legislature will meet in a special session to vote on the proposed changes to our congressional districts.  The map that the Democrats have proposed is arguably the most politically convoluted map in the country.  It disregards the demography and natural geographical boundaries of the entire central part of the state.  This will ultimately be decided in court.

Professor Todd Eberly at FreeState blogger has a great analysis of the proposed redistricting plan.  Here is his conclusion:

The House of Representatives was meant to be the most democratic of all federal institutions. It was meant to be the body where the diverse interests of the people mingled and produced compromise. It was to be the place where the baneful influence of factions would be countered and moderated. Gerrymandering subverts all of that and subjugates the interests of the people to the interests of political parties.

Perhaps it was  naive to have expected more from Governor O'Malley, but it certainly was not wrong to have expected better. I will confess to being a pretty liberal person (I know, a liberal college professor - shocking). I support a truly progressive tax code, I want the death penalty to end, I want single-payer national health insurance, I support marriage equality, and think we need comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship and in-state tuition for the children of illegal immigrants. I know that all of these things will only happen if Democrats are the folks making the laws. But process matters, the ends can never be used to justify the means, and democracy demands that the diverse interests and beliefs of the people be represented. It is better to lose a fair fight, than to win a rigged game.

The proposed maps for Maryland, as well as the GOP proposed maps in states like Texas, are supreme acts of political cowardice. If Democrats and Republicans truly believed that their ideas, their vision for America, were more powerful there would be no need rig the system like this. Maps such as these, represent a clear acknowledgement by the parties that they do not believe they can win a fair fight in the battlefield of ideas.

Roger Williams (R CAND, TX CD-33) Pins the Tail on the Donkey

Roger Williams, former Secretary of State under Rick Perry in Texas, is running for Congress to teach the young donkeys about the values of this country.  The newly-created 33rd district will cover the staunchly conservative suburbs of Fort Worth.  The Republican nominee will be a shoo-in for the general election, and it appears that we just might have our man in Roger Williams.

Here is Roger Williams’s epic campaign ad:

Texas Republicans have really exhibited good judgement in utilizing their talent this year.  Originally, there were several solid candidates running for the Senate seat being vacated by Kay Bailey Hutchison.  Once it became clear that there would be four new congressional districts, former Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams opted to run for Congress in the newly 25th district, while Roger Williams (not related to Michael) is beating up the donkeys in district 33.  This has left former Solicitor General Ted Cruz with the inside track for the Senate seat.  Good work, Texas Republicans.

If you want to help Roger Williams spread his message of self-reliance to the parasitic donkeys, you can check out his website and send him a donation.

Maryland is Still Most Democrat State in the Nation

OK. The District of Columbia is more Democratic than Maryland, and Hawaii Democrats enjoy a slightly larger registration gap over Republican in their state.  But Maryland is still at the top of the list., according to Gallup.  Click on the chart to view the partisan breakdown of each state:

Maryland GOP Redistricting Map Receives More Attention

Last week, we highlighted the new redistricting map from the Maryland GOP.  While many in the media scoff at the notion that Republicans are relevant enough to get a seat at the table, especially when their proposal would net more Republican seats, they miss one major point.  The GOP map is the only one that respects the geographical boundaries of natural communities, counties, and demographic orientations.

Proposed 2012 map from GOP

Today, St. Mary's College political science professor Todd Eberly penned a great opinion piece in the Washington Post endorsing the Republican map.  He offers one of the most compelling arguments against the egregious gerrymandering of Maryland congressional districts at the hands of the state's Democrats.  He also provides a solid historical background of the congressional districts.

"It is important to consider how Maryland’s bizarre congressional districts came into existence. Before the 2001 redistricting, the state’s congressional delegation included four Democrats and four Republicans. That split was unacceptable to Glendening and state Democratic leaders, given their party’s sizable registration advantage, so they drew lines to dilute Republican counties and expand the reach of Democratic strongholds.
The goal was clear — elect more Democrats — and it was met. But there was a cost. Rather than respecting political diversity and natural community boundaries, districts were designed solely to maximize Democratic influence."[...]

"Meanwhile, state Republicans have proposed a map with compact districts that treat the borders of counties and communities with respect. Only Baltimore County would occupy more than two districts. A badly needed Baltimore City district (a new District 7) would be created by adding a sliver of Baltimore County’s population to the city’s 631,000 residents. Harford would occupy one district. Anne Arundel would be in two districts not four. Montgomery and Prince George’s would each be included in two districts — the minimum possible given their large populations."

Please read the full article here.

There is Only One Fair Redistricting Map in Maryland

It's that time of the decade again.  The Democrats plan to use their unchecked power to splice up the map and make the congressional districts even more favorable for them than before.  The MD GOP put out their own proposal that would preserve the geographical and demographic integrity of the districts.   Yes, it would benefit Republicans, but anyone who knows Maryland can appreciate that it is the only fair map.  The bottom line is that Baltimore City, with its declining population of 630,000, can easily fit into one congressional district.  There is no reason to divide it into four district to suit the Democrats' electoral dreams.  Here it is:

60 Plus Association TV Ad Defending Ryan's Medicare Reform Plan

It's quite arduous to articulate the problems and solutions for medicare in a 30-second TV ad.  It is much easier to demagogue the issue with fallacious bromides about throwing granny off the cliff.  Nonetheless, the good folks at 60 Plus are trying:

Moving RINOS Rightward is Good, Defeating them is even Better

Well, the dust has settled from the 2012 legislative session, and organizations like National Journal and American Conservative Union have published their annual voting reports.  So who are the 'top conservatives'?  You'll never guess.

Here is a list of the 'top conservatives' from National Journal and the ACU, along with their composite conservative scores.  Check out this link for the description of ACU's scorecard and this link for National Journal's methodology.

National Journal
                                                                                 
1. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) 89.7
1. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) 89.7
1. John Cornyn (R-Texas) 89.7
1. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) 89.7
1. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) 89.7
1. John McCain (R-Ariz.) 89.7
1. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) 89.7
1. John Thune (R-S.D.) 89.7
9. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) 87.3
10.Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) 86.8

American Conservative Union


1. John Barrasso-100%

1. Sam Brownback- 100%
1. Saxby Chambliss-100%
1. Tom Coburn-100%
1. John Cornyn-100%
1. Mike Crapo-100%
1. Jim DeMint-100%
1. Orrin Hatch-100%
1. John McCain-100%
1. James Risch-100%
1. Jeff Sessions-100%
1. John Thune-100%


I'm sure everyone would like to know how the likes of John McCain made it to both lists along with Jim DeMint.  Well, for one thing, the ACU only scores 25 votes and although the National Journal scores 100 votes, they have not published their descriptions.  More importantly, these reports prove two things; the effectiveness of grassroots conservatives and the inherent flaws of legislative scorecards.

It's Official: MD is the Most Democrat State

Gallup just released their latest polling data on party strength in each of the fifty states.  They polled the respondents based on their party identification, not political ideology.  As it turns out, the most Democrat state (excluding DC, of course) is not Vermont, New York, or Massachusetts.  It is... Maryland!  That's right.  Maryland is the state with the largest Democrat party advantage, at 22% over the GOP.  Here is a list of the top ten Democrat and GOP states:

Most Dem States        
1. D.C.
2. Maryland
3. Massachusetts
4. Vermont
5. Hawaii
6. Rhode Island
7. New York
8. Delaware
9. Connecticut
10. California

Most Republican States


1. Wyoming
2. Utah
3. Idaho
4. Alaska
5. Kansas
6. Montana
7. Nebraska
8. South Dakota
9. New Hampshire
10. Alabama


Here is Gallup's contextual perspective of those at the top of the list:

The Democrats Have a Suicide Wish With Filibuster Reform

Back in 2005, when Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and presidency, they were contemplating a "nuclear option" to end the filibuster on judicial nominees.  We were all aghast at the unprecedented number of filibusters that were mounted by Democrats to block highly qualified nominees to Federal Appellate courts.  At the time, the ever perspicacious George Will warned conservatives of the counter-intuitive consequences of squelching the filibuster.  He wrote in the Washington Post on April 25, 2003:

“The future will bring Democratic presidents and Senate majorities. How would you react were such a majority about to change Senate rules to prevent you from filibustering to block a nominee likely to construe the equal protection clause as creating a constitutional right to same-sex marriage?

And pruning the filibuster in the name of majority rule would sharpen the shears that one day will be used to prune it further. If filibusters of judicial nominations are impermissible, why not those of all nominations -- and of treaties, too?”

As it turned out, the Republicans lost control of both Houses within17 months, and by 2009, the Democrats had the presidency and 59 seats in the Senate.  Had Republicans opened the door for filibuster reform, the Democrats might have taken the initiative to completely extirpate it.  One could only imagine how destructive the 111th congress would have been with unbridled power.

Luckily, the Democrats lacked the political support and audacity to implement filibuster reform when it would have counted.  Now that they are irrelevant, they are calling for changes in the filibuster.  The reality is that such radical changes in Senate rules can only undermine the Democrats and benefit Republicans.

Although the Democrats will still control the Senate for the next two years, the Republican-controlled House would block any measure that passes the Senate.  Therefore, even if they were to abolish the filibuster altogether, they would never benefit from it.

Florida Exit Poll: Rubio and Scott won the Hispanic Vote

We are lectured ad nauseum by the open borders Republicans about the electoral devastation that is looming if we fail to enact an amnesty program.  They assert that our strong support for borders and immigration enforcement will drive away all Hispanic voters.  Well, the Miami Herald observes that not only didn't we get swamped by Hispanics; we actually won their vote outright in Florida.  Both Marco Rubio and Rick Scott campaigned on their support for Arizona SB 1070.  In fact, Rick Scott won his stunning upset over Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum exclusively due to his promise of implementing a similar law in Florida.  We were told that Scott would be viewed like David Duke by most Hispanic voters.  To those who understand the importance of immigration enforcement, the election results are not surprising.  Here is the exit polling data from Florida, as reported in the Miami Herald:

Republican Marco Rubio, who is Cuban-American, got 55 percent of the Hispanic vote in the U.S. Senate race, compared to no-party Charlie Crist with 23 percent and Democrat Kendrick Meek with 21 percent. Republican Rick Scott got 50 percent of the Hispanic vote in the governor's race, while Democrat Alex Sink got 48 percent.

Bright Prospects for GOP Farm Team

After examining the results of state and local elections, it appears that the lower  the profile of the election, the better the result for conservatives.  In other words, where the Democrat/media smear machine was silent, the majority of the voters picked the Republican.  This explains our historic margins in the state legislature races across the country.  In addition, we picked up 6 Secretary of State offices and 5 (or 6, depending upon the fraud in California) Attorneys General offices.  See more about those races here.

After examining the down the ticket races more carefully, it appears that we have picked up 8 offices that are roughly the equivalent to the CFO of the state.  In some states they are referred to as Comptroller, in others they are the state Treasurer or CFO.  We picked up those seats in Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin.  As you can see, some of those turnovers were in vital swing states.  These positions are important, not just because of their control over the budget, but also as future farm teams for higher office.  Overall, we are in a very good position to field quality candidates in every swing state for the foreseeable future.

Two More New York House Seats in Play

For all of the talk concerning the Republican's dismal showing in the northeast, we did exceptionally well in New York.  We picked up five seats across the state, and now there is a possibility that we can win two remaining contested seats.  In NY-25, Republican Ann Marie Buerkle is now leading Democratic Rep. Dan Maffei by 659 votes.  With many staunch Republican military ballots yet to be counted, I am confident that we will pull this one out.  This is quite significant because NY-25 (which represents Syracuse and it's suburbs) is actually rated D+3 by Charlie Cook, and would represent one of the few D seats that we successfully flipped this cycle.

The big news over the weekend was in NY-1 (Suffolk County, Long Island) in which an error in a ballot machine has turned a certain victory for the incumbent Democrat into a possible defeat.  On election night, Democrat Tim Bishop was ahead of Republican Randy Altschuler by 3,400 votes.  This race was actually called for Bishop fairly early in the night.  Amazingly, over the weekend, the local board of elections discovered an error in one machine that has now created a 400 vote lead for Altschuler.  According to the AP, "Board of Elections commissioner Wayne Rogers said the original numbers were reported by telephone and relayed through intermediaries before being entered into the county's computer system."

There were a bunch of House races in which the Democrat won by just a few thousand votes.  One has to wonder how many other races were erroneously called for Democrats.  It is amazing to me that the Democrats seem to win almost every close race, or any race that goes past election day.  These two races in New York might turn out to be exceptions to the rule.  If that is the case, we will net 7 seats from New York, the most of any state in the country.  If not for the conservative/Republican split in NY-23, in which Doug Hoffman remained on the ballot, we would have flipped that seat as well.  How ironic that our biggest victory in the House elections would have occurred in the bluest of states!  One could only imagine what would have happened had we had substantive challengers on the top of the ticket.

Election 2010: A Look at Some Down the Ticket Races

 There has been a lot of focus on the major Republican victories in state legislatures.  Most people haven't focused as much on some of the other statewide races across the country.  Well, according to preliminary results, it appears that we have won some Attorney General and Secretary of State offices in several key states.  It is important to note that these offices are vital to our efforts to augment our farm team of future candidates in some key states.  Many Gubernatorial and Senatorial candidates in recent years have been AG's or SOS's.  Here is a brief synopsis of the Republican victories in these key races:

Secretaries of State

We have previously expressed the importance of this office due to the election fraud laws that are being passed by Democrats across the country.  It appears that we have picked up 6 of these offices, some of them in key swing states.  There will be new Republican Secretaries of State in Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas (Kris Kobach), Iowa, New Mexico, and the all important state of Ohio.  In New Mexico, there hasn't been a Republican SOS since 1928!  Also, in Oklahoma, the Governor picks the Sec. of State.  Currently, a Democrat occupies that office, but that will change with the inauguration of Mary Fallin.  In January, Republicans will control 26 Sec. of State offices, while Democrats will control 20.

Attorneys General

These positions have growing importance due to the coming state's rights clashes in the realm of issues such as immigration, health care, and environmental regulations.  Our election primer on the AG races is here. We could have done a little better on the AG front, but it appears that we have picked up at least 5 offices.  We have added Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Ohio, and Oklahoma to the list of state AG's that we control.  The Democrats still control 27 of these offices.

A Comprehensive Roundup of our Stunning Victory

Earlier today, I tried to put some of the disappointing Senate news in perspective. Now, with the negative news out of the way, let's sift through the rubble and reflect on the amazing news of the night. Here is a rundown and analysis of our victories in the House.  Later, we will analyze the state legislature and AG races.

House

It looks like we have a stunning 65 or so net gain on our hands.  Aside for the amazing fact in itself that we have picked up the most seats since 1946, and are poised to hold the most seats since the 20's, there is much more positive news in this result than meets the eye.  Normally, when one party wins more than 30 seats, let alone 65, they must immediately prepare for the arduous task of holding those seats for the next cycle.  This year is different.  If you look at the electoral map, the Republicans actually barely won any D rated districts (using the Cook PVI), while they kicked out almost every Democrat from an R rated district.  This represents a permanent realignment.  In fact, there are still a few more seats on the table in which we came close to winning.  If we can recruit more good candidates we can wipe out the remaining red seat Dems.  It is also important to notice that those few remaining blue dogs are the most conservative Democrats.  So basically the Democrat caucus will be the most radical caucus ever, with the exception of a few red state Dems who will be forced to either switch parties or vote with us.

Another important point to consider is that we are now slated to control redistricting in almost every important state (we will post more regarding Governors and state legislatures later).  Also, more red states will receive extra seats and more blue states will lose seats under reapportionment.  These majorities will be permanent and will expand, even if we fail to make inroads into blue districts (which unfortunately seems to be the prognosis after last night's disappointment in these areas).

Here are some interesting numbers concerning the House

The Political Dynamic in the Senate is Much Better than it Appears

After the completion of an election with a record amount of competitive state and federal races, it is often hard to sift through the rubble and ascertain the true meaning of the results. Many of us are a bit disappointed with the results on the Senate side. I'll be doing a comprehensive analysis of the House, Gubernatorial, state legislature, and other statewide races in a later post. For now I wanted to tackle the bad news first. In reality, I think there is a lot to look forward to in the Senate in the long run.


Let's start with the worst news of the night; the Senate results. There is no doubt that the loss of such a great conservative as Sharon Angle is devastating. The fact that instead of a tea party patriot representing Nevada, we will still have Harry Reid is quite nauseating. This was by far the worst news of the night. Other bad news was Joe Miller, Carly Fiorina, and possibly even Ken Buck (we will have to see what sort of cheating occurs in Washington and Colorado). But here are some important things to consider:

• We will still have at least 47 Republican Senators, and maybe even 48 or 49 when all the votes are counted. This will present the Democrats with a challenge of governing a totally unworkable majority. So they will hold the responsibility of governing (thus taking away one of Obama's selling points for 2012), but will have very little power.

• Many people have lost sight of how many good conservatives we have gained in the Senate. Instead of Blanch Lincoln in Arkansas we have John Boozman. We also have Pat Toomey, Rand Paul, Ron Johnson, John Hoeven, and Dan Coats (instead of pseudo-moderate Evan Bayh). Also, let's not overlook the fact that we have turned so many incumbent R seats to the right. Instead of a RINO in Florida, we now have Marco Rubio. In Kansas, Jerry Moran is replacing La Raza Senator Brownback. Roy Blunt is not a tea partier, but he has a better voting record than outgoing Senator Kit Bond. Kelly Ayotte is much better than Judd Gregg in New Hampshire. Rob Portman in Ohio is almost tantamount to a pickup because Voinovich was an absolute RINO. Mike Lee is replacing Bob Bennett. So in reality, we have really moved at least 12 seats to the right (not including potential wins by Rossi and Buck).

Late Night Upsets

Ok, well things are looking to be very close to the way both the Senate and House polls were predicting. I'll have a full roundup and analysis of all the House races as well as some of the state legislature, Attorney General, and other statewide races tomorrow. For now, here are two potential upsets.

IL-8: With almost 90% reporting Republican Joe Walsh is virtually tied with Democrat Congresswomen Mellisa Bean.

TX-27: With 87% reporting Republican Blake Farenthold in running closely ahead of progressive leader Solomon Ortiz.

We'll see if they pull it out.

Making Sense of the Pre-Election Chaos

As we head into the final hours of the 2010 elections, there have been conflicting indications as to where we are headed on election night.  Here are some things to consider:

- Although tomorrow night will undoubtedly be a good night for us, the election is still very volatile and there is a wide disparity in terms of possible outcomes.  The election results could be similar to 1994 in which we picked up 8 Senate and 52 House seats.  On the other hand, it could be a super wave that could lead to a Senate majority, as well as up to 100 more seats in the House.  We therefore cannot rest until the polls close.  Call all your friends and family and make sure they vote Republican.

- Part of the reason why there is still so much uncertainty is because of the dichotomy between the macro polling and the individual state polling.  Let's put it bluntly.  Both the 15 point Gallup generic ballot lead and the state Senate polls cannot be true.  If the Republicans really lead by such a margin on the generic ballot polling, then there is no way that they are in such tight races in California, West Virginia, Washington, and Colorado.  If the generic macro polling data that gives the GOP a 30 point lead among independents and a 6 point lead among women is really accurate, then all those races are going in our direction.  In fact, the battle lines would move as far as to place Delaware and Connecticut in play.  Conversely, if the state polling is correct, then there is no way that the macro polling is accurate.

-  Turnout Models: This is connected to the previous point.  Most of the state polling that shows the GOP wave stalling in some Senate and Gov. races predict a turnout model similar to that of 2006.  Even Rasmussen has been doing this.  Their most recent Washington poll which has Rossi up 1, is pegged exactly to the 2006 party ID numbers.  The most recent Survey USA poll which had Boxer up by 8, assumed a more favorable Democrat turnout than in 2006.  This could provide us with a resolution to the contradiction between the state and macro polling data.  If we are to assume that the macro polling numbers (generic ballot, demographics, enthusiasm, etc.) are correct, then we have to add at least 5 points to every Senate race poll to account for the more favorable turnout models.  Nate Silver argues that this is one of the reasons why the wave can be even bigger than expected.

- House Polls: The House wave keeps growing even as we speak.  If the Republicans would just win the R rated districts, they would pick up 70 seats.  Yet, there are dozens more incumbents in deep D territory that are seriously vulnerable, and some are certain to go down.  All of the polling data confirms this.  Just today, there was a poll out of CT-5 in which Republican Sam Caliguiri was up 9 points in a D+2 district!  If this is true, there is no way that we aren't doing better in the Senate races.  Again, there is something flawed in the turnout models of these polls.

The Juggernaut of the Democrat and Media Smear Machine

Several astute political observers have begun to notice the growing dichotomy between the state of the House races and the Senate races.  While the conservative wave has continued to build in the House, it has stalled and even faltered in statewide races.  More house polls continue to show incumbent liberals in deep blue territory to be vulnerable.  However, on the Senate front (and in a few Gubernatorial races), we have lost ground throughout October.  

Our momentum has stalled in Colorado and Illinois, and the Democrats were even beginning to make a comeback in Kentucky and Pennsylvania (those races are now looking better).  In addition, Connecticut and Delaware seem to be lost, while California and Washington are looking tough.  Joe Manchin has successfully lied to West Virginians about his liberalism and is looking pretty competitive.  The question is, how are the Democrats successfully competing in some of these races while there is record unemployment and economic malaise?  The answer is quite simple; it’s the Democrat/media smear machine, of course!

The Senatorial and Gubernatorial races that the Democrats have been competitive in during the past month directly correspond with the candidates whom they have most successfully smeared. Despite the tidal wave of anger against the Democrats, and the decline of America as a result of their policies, the liberals have successfully isolated some statewide races and dragged down their Republican opponents based upon frivolous allegations, lies, and distractions. Evidently, the smears and lies about Meg Whitman’s cleaning lady, John Raese’s wife, Ken Buck’s statements, Joe Miller’s past, and Rand Paul’s college years, are more important than the state of the economy and the future of the nation. Together with their buddies in the media, liberals and rinos (in the case of Murkowski) have been able to succeed (at least to some degree) in their time tested use of politics of personal destruction, even in the most unfavorable political climate for Democrats in many years. What does this say about many voters in this country?