Democrat Bill Owens defeated conservative Republican Doug Hoffman in a hotly contested race for Congress in New York's 23rd congressional district. For the first time since the Civil War, the seat will be held by a Democrat. The historic win is being called a major defeat for conservative activists.
The tables turn slowly, but they do turn. The Republican Party was once The Party of Lincoln, a unifier who fought for equal rights and the abolition of slavery. Today it is the Democratic Party, the political party that long defended slavery in both the North and the South, that has taken on the fight for justice and equality.
Still, after we either shout a cheer or lick our wounds, we would all benefit from listening to the words of the newly elected Congressman:
"The challenges that we face are not Democratic or Republican. They are not liberal or conservative. They're challenges that Americans face and that we will overcome with American resolve."
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 64
Ironically, at the time the South accused the Republican party of being sectional because there were no Republicans in the South, and now the South is the primary Republican stronghold as far as Senate and House representation.
Good idea, or at least until you can actually spell Massachusetts!
Other democrats better take note of what happened in NJ and Virginia: Don't count on Obama voters if you don't pass healthcare.
Obama voters did not come out because they don't have any reason to do so. If you are left with the old and white, you will all lose.
Alan D,
A more racist statement I cannot find.
Alan, if the voters who put Obama over the top were African Americans and young people, and I believe they were, they needed to vote in this election, too. I do hope this helps to energize all people who are wary of what the right-wing victories can mean.
I'm white and I didn't take Alan's comment to be racist. He was just pointing out what the face of politics has been for centuries in this country. The only thing he left out was "male."
I might vote for any of the three, but this country is more than old white guys and people are slowly beginning to realize that. We need more female and minority minds to run this country now to better represent the population.
For example, Independents went for both McDonnell and Christie more than expected based on last year's trend, so why did that happen? The answer will have a potentially major effect on strategies for 2010.
It's nice to quote patriotic words (even though many democrats don't believe such words), why not quote such lessons from the Founding Fathers or Reagan?
All three races showed that ultimately, all politics are local.
It also showed that the teabaggers, despite the intrusion of such frightwing stalwarts as Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Thompson, et. al, couldn't deliver a pizza.
It was really funny too that Hoffman accused ACORN of stealing the election!
A quick note on this. It's a misnomer to consider NJ "one of the bluest states" at the state level. Sure, it generally goes Democratic for the presidential races, but there have been both Democratic and Republican governors in the state. The last four have been Democrats but the four before that were all Republican. Before that it seems that New Jerseyites would flip from party to party at each election, which pretty much means "hate whoever is in office."
I don't know that I would agree that is was "clear" but I do concur that if the Republican party had been backing one candidate all along that everyone could get behind the Republicans should have won. After all, the district had been Republican for what, 100 years? The question is, does the Republican party want to drive itself further to the right and thus limit their appeal to swing voters? And does conservative mean fiscally and socially conservative? It makes a difference.
I would agree with the last line, but Reagan was one of the least fiscally conservative presidents we've had in a long long time. Sure, he gave out tax breaks, but is that all that conservatism means these days? Reagan oversaw a huge expansion in government, borrowed money like water, ran up a huge and unprecedented debt, and put tons of money into the military, mostly to defense contractors even though we didn't have any wars at the time.
Nobody on the left is really talking about it now, at least in the context you imply. Most of the talking is by Republicans.
and complimentary comments about such characters as Chairman Mao and Chavez.
Actually, Anita Dunn indicated that it was Lee Atwater who she got the Mao idea from. You remember Lee Atwater, right? He was an advisor to Ronald Reagan and an RNC chairman. The Ronald Reagan who went to China in 1984 to continue to open up trade relations that another Republican president, Richard Nixon, had first started by meeting with Mao.
No value judgments implied, but it does suggest one shouldn't be too free in tossing out platitudes.
As for Chavez, I assume you are referring to when Chavez should Obama's hand at a meeting of world leaders. What would you have expected Obama to do to an elected president of a sovereign nation, deck him?
What the left wants is the unattainable equal outcomes. This concept has been discredited by every generation. Samual Adams (one of those pesky know-it-all Founding Fathers said about this:
The Utopian schemes of leveling [re-distribution of the wealth] and a community of goods [central ownership of the means of production and distribution], are as visionary (not in a good way - ed.) and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. [ These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional.
Anita Dunn said what she said and even if she now disingenuously claims it was a joke or not sincere, even to say anything of the like in America as one high in the administration is demonstration alone of how far left this group is. Neither Lee Atwater, Reagan, nor Nixon would have said that they looked to Mao for guidance. Dunn DID say that. Radical.
As to Chavez, the Obama's FCC diversity guy Mark Lloyd says that Chavez ran 'an incredible democratic revolution' which was defeated until he took CONTROL OF THE MEDIA. This from an official in the Obama FCC. Doesn't that make you warm and fuzzy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWYJRtKHthk
We can return to 75% now, or go higher later.
Which part of "that simply won't work" do you not understand?
Property is what you buy with said income.
94% top tax rate worked in, and around, 1950. It absolutely worked.
They are aiming higher than shooting themselves in the foot, in my opinion.
Ouch.
Oh, what fun.
Here we go again.
NY23 was NOT a Dem win over a Republican, It was a darn close race against a third party and I think that is significant in spite of the fact that Hoffman lost by a narrow margin.
What with the aetna and wal-mart senators in there.
I wonder how many senators are actually owned by big money?
For all of the faults under the Bush Presidency (and there were many), things were passed into LAW when he was around. His last two years under a full Democratic Congress, things were passed. His first 2 years with a Democratic Senate, things were passed (Remember when Bush and Kennedy got the No Child Left Behind Act that was pushed enthusiastically by the Democratic Senate?)
Democrats haven't had a majority of this size since Nixon, and all they can do is whine and moan about obstructionism from the minority party? But wait, don't the Democrats have 60 votes to push through health legislation? Ah, I know why, because the following Democrats are against it, have reservations or know voting for it will end their careers.
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Kent Conrad (D-SD)
Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Joseph Lieberman (I-CT)
Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Tom Carper (D-DE)
Max Baucus (D-MT)
As for the Cap and Trade bill, Democrats will also try and paint that as being led by Republican obstructionism. Look at the list of amendments that are going to be voted on to give out free permits to industries, and reduce the CO2 reduction goail: all Democrats.
Democrats own this government. It's time for you to govern, or let others do it for you. Democrats have 60%of the seats in the Senate and almost 60% in the House. If Bush can GOVERN (Doesn't matter if you agree with his policies or not. He GOVERNED the country) with a Congress in support of him for 6 and against him for 2, Obama should be able to govern with his astounding majorities.
Keep blaming "Republican obstructionism." We'll see if that gains the Democrats any more seats in either house in 2010. Probably not
The rush to self destruction in politics today.