Mickey Kaus thinks it is all about Social Security and the fact that President Obama has put it on the table. In suggesting this he abandons other factors, like the fact that some believe President Obama has put Israel on the table. The issue of Israel was front and center in an article in Slate, by David Weigel. Along with the issue of gay marriage, per Mr Weigel. But, Mr Weigel also thinks that social programs were a factor.
New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind (a Democrat and an Orthodox Jew) endorsed the Republican candidate. He is quoted by Slate's Columnist Weigel:
The president of the United States is now a member of the Tea Party! He said, in his own words, that there won’t be Medicare and Social Security for my children and your children and my grandchildren unless we address Medicare!It is getting ugly out there.
And, our congratulations to Mr Bob Turner for his victory. Our condolences to State Assemblyman David Weprin on his defeat.
And congratulations to Republican Mark Amodei, out in Reno, Nevada, where he won a US House Seat (NV-2) agains Democrat Kate Marshall—by 20 points.
Hat tip to the Instapundit.
Regards — Cliff
5 comments:
I find the tone-deafness of partisan punditry to be remarkable. While the guy who actually ran and won is crowing to everyone who will listen that it's about the economy, the "smarter than you" folks on the D side are speculating whether it's a punishment for Obama's willingness to talk about Social Security. (Their premise being, "if only we would keep pandering to our traditional base more effectively, this never would have happened).
One side wins by stressing government spending reductions, while the losing side complains that they didn't support higher levels of government spending quite enough. Am I the only one who sees how ridiculous this is?
No.
On the other hand, sometimes elections are about more than the economy. In this election they might have been.
Regards — Cliff
Presuming electorates are perverse enough to cut off their rhetorical nose to spite their partisan face is hard for me to imagine. If D's think that Obama is not quite "D" enough for them, why would they run to an "R" as an alternative? Do we expect Republican Tea Partiers to run to D's should they find some of their R brethren wanting next? (No, I don't think a disaffected Bachmann supporter to go Obama should she lose to someone "not Tea Party enough" for them.
And if it's actually something less visible, like, say Jewish ire for what they perceive to be softness on Zionist issues, it's further hard for me to imagine that they'd toss aside a lifetime of liberalism to embrace a Republican flavor of the month.
No, I think it's the awakening of a non-aligned electorate who understands that party platforms have become lies, so there's no use in paying attention to them. It's down to the individual, and the individual issue, and this winning candidate's winning individual issue is the economic attack on the middle class. At least that's the way I see it...
Last night someone pointed out to me that the menus in delicatessens in the District (NY-9) have changed over the years, due to an influx of Russian Jews. In the same way, the politics has been shifting and these new Jews see Washington politics through a different lens and thus are less enamored of policies they see as too far to the left. (Is this an Ashkenazi vs Sephardic issue? I don't know, but find it a fascinating question.)
Regards — Cliff
Post a Comment