Exactly! And please, Republican party, select candidates that offer a solid message of real change, not this phony kind. Get a plan! Contract with America, part II or whatever you want to call it.

Now the question is whether or not Obama will significantly change course to win back those who no longer trust him . . .

Probably not, since he wasn't even watching the returns last night.

Dear Lorie, this is an excellent, useful post, with the links to the various "round-ups" -- thanks.

NY-23 was a HUGE win for the Republican Party Establishment. And a huge loss for Republican Party Members and Conservatives.

The Lesson?

"You'll vote for who we tell you to vote for or you'll get the Democrat."
That's the reason why Dede Scozzafava supported Owens at the last moment, because for this system to "work" there can't be a viable third party.
We need intelligent third party candidates that don't look and sound like that "Crazy Libertarian Guy" from the dorms in college.

Obama isn't going to change.
His ego (and those of Axlerod/Emmanuel) won't allow that.

I suspect he'll push his agenda even faster hoping to get something passed before the window of opportunity closes.

Last thought... wonder what the White House talks are right now. Who to blame?

Meijj_man, the less to the GOP was Send us a REAL candidate or the Democrat will win. Plain and simple. No sense in have RINOs in power when you can let the extreme left wing libtards own this ride to the destruction of America as we know it.

The "O" will not be able to go against his core values because his base and advisers won't let him even if he wanted to. 2010 is not far enough away to turn the mess around with his mop because he doesn't know which end to hold on to. Republicans need to temper the celebration by looking at what didn't work in NY23. Where are the leaders that put Scoza-what's her name up for the seat? I hope they aren't around in 2010. The RNC better take the loss as a teachable moment. Liberals aren't going away and they aren't going to give up just because of a few state races.

Palin and the social conservative extremists who bucked the GOP establishment went down hard. Outside money poured into NY-23 and the seat, which had been Republican since the Civil War, went to a Democrat.

What this shows is not only that voter sentiment isn't what the right wing blogosphere wants to believe it is. They made a bad call again - but be sure to listen to them when they tell you it's all ok, lol.

Those results certainly aren't a great sign for the president, but then again, the sitting president's party, whichever one it is, routinely loses the gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia. The exit polls in both states showed more voters approved of President Obama's job performance than not, and most people in both states said he had nothing to do with how they voted. (In fact, those who said the president was a factor were evenly split between showing support and opposition to him)

People expressed much more concern about the economy than anything else, but local issues in both states -- Democrat Creigh Deeds' inability to connect with voters in Virginia, and a desire for change in scandal-ridden New Jersey -- also played major roles. (ABC News has a good rundown of the numbers here.)

But if anything belies the notion of a "transcendent," unified GOP, it's the victory of a Democrat in the solidly Republican 23rd Congressional District in upstate New York. In that race, Republicans nominated a socially liberal Republican, Dierdre Scozzafava, only to see conservatives rally around a much more right wing candidate, Doug Hoffman. National Republicans, including Sarah Palin, Fred Thompson and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, endorsed Hoffman, and Scozzafava dropped out over the weekend. She endorsed the Democrat, Bill Owens, and recorded robocalls on his behalf. He won.

So what voice exactly has the GOP found? The moderate one that brought victory in Virginia and New Jersey, or the hard-line conservative one that flopped in New York?

Social conservatives aren't talking about the sound thumping they received. When faced with a hard right candidate the moderates swung left. Palin went down hard.

The only chance the GOP has is to toe the moderate line - but social conservatives will continue their fight to break away - and we'll see more results like NY-23 in future elections where Republicans lose long-held seats.

Vic

Like I've been telling people after the 2008 elections, people vote their pocketbook first. The public wants pragmatic solutions that create jobs and expands business more then they want ideologically driven change.

Democrats wasted their chance with their partisan stimulus bill that just threw money at the problem with no focus or guiding purpose. Then with a deaf ear the Democrats in congress loaded up the scheduled spending bill with record breaking pork and tried to pass it off using the childish idea that it was last year's business.

The demo rat in chief tries to justify record deficit spending by citing Bush's deficit spending as if doing something stupid in good economic times justifies doing something even more stupid in poor economic times. As unemployment continues to rise to levels not seen in a quarter century democrats are focused on another huge spending bill rather than fixing the economy. Next on their agenda is the scam driven cap and tax bill that actually hurts the economy and costs jobs.

If Democrats don't get off their ideologically driven change track then 2010 will mark the end of their control of the house and filibuster proof majority in the senate. Wise up or you'll be voted down by the American people.

Michelle Malkin, in the article linked above, explains why electing more Democrats is a good thing.

Hoffman may have lost narrowly, but NY-23 is a much broader victory for conservatives who believe the Republican Party should stand for core limited government principles. Scozzafava, who was endorsed by far Left blogger Markos Moulitsas Zuniga and backed by Planned Parenthood, the National Education Association, and card-check-promoting trade unions, was denied the congressional seat because movement conservatives refused to support Arlen Specter in a skirt. This is a victory of principle.

Better a donkey in office that acts like a donkey than a donkey in elephant's clothing making a complete ass of the GOP.

Uhm, yeah. That's such a stupid statement it's worth leaving untouched. I hope the last sentence gets onto bumper stickers and t-shirts as soon as possible.

Vic

Social conservatives aren't talking about the sound thumping they received. When faced with a hard right candidate the moderates swung left.

Social issues weren't the issue in NY-23. In Mine we saw the public embrace Social conservative issues by denying special rights to those practicing biologically deviant behavior.

The lesson from NY-23 for Republicans is a very narrow one. If there's a special election where there's no primary, at least take a poll to find candidates Republicans can support. Just picking a "left of the Democrat" candidate and calling them a Republican doesn't fool the public.

Vic, let me fix it for you.
"Better a jack ass in office that acts like a jack ass than a jack ass in elephant's clothing making a complete ass of the GOP leadership."

The reason for lower Dem turnout? No historic black guy to vote for. Folks always want to be part of a historic vote without realizing that every election will be a historic one, if only they would participate.

*insert guffaw here*

anyone that thinks that the well-over-40% of voters that voted for "hard right" Hoffman doesn't include "moderates" in a district that voted for Obama is as dumb as we all suspect. Particularly since the 5% that voted the dead R line almost certainly are solidly on the right and always vote R, whether they know the candidate dropped out or not - it's unlikely many liberals voted R instead of switching to Owens. Which means that you have to claim that roughly 50% of the electorate in the 23rd includes no moderates.

Yup, real likely.

(AP) "The White House says that Republican wins in two governors' races were not referendums on the president."

I, for one, am shocked that they would say this. Not. Really, they should just call the winners quietly to congratulate them and shut up and figure out what they're going to do about Afghanistan, because they really weren't 'referendums on the president' to be honest (except to demonstrate his lack of 'pull' with independent voters by supporting the Dems) - the more they dirty the water talking about it they more they sound like they're 'protesting too much'.

"Unlike in Clinton's first term though, unemployment is at 30 year record highs in some states"

Hmmmm? What was going on 30 years ago that could have caused those Obama like numbers??

Oh, thats right!

Mr. PeeNut was punishing us all with His misery index and touching fireside chats where He encouraged us all to put on an x-tra 4 layers of clothing and turn the thermostat down to a level that would fulfill a global warming whackjob's wettest dream.

Vic, your sentiments could have been predicted. You have no interest in an alternative to Democrat policies: Obamacare, card check, social mandates. It is your belief this is what is best for the United States. Conservatives feel different. I am interested in having an alternative to these policies and no matter how you parse it, Scozzafava was not that alternative. We need less Republicans like her. So an election is lost because of it this time, no big deal to me. Current Democrat policies are not sustainable and third party candidates in Hoffman's position have a very difficult time winning. Please don't pretend the Democrats did not take note of what Hoffman DID pull off. Any threat to the establishment - whether Democrat or Republican - makes both sides uncomfortable. In a year a more conservative candidate may be the Republican nominee, then things might be different.

I can understand why the big troll talking point for NY-23 is "Sarah lost". No one scares the left like Sarah Palin so they will trash her at every opportunity. But you know who lost much, much worse? Newt Gingrich. The Republican he endorsed got about 5% of the vote. The Republican Gingrich endorsed ended up being forced to drop out and then she endorsed the Democrat. The next time Gingrich offers to campaign for a Republican anywhere the answer will be thank you for your service, Sir, but stay the hell away from me!

I used to like Gingrich so I'm sorry to see him at such a low ebb. I don't see him ever coming back from this one.

I am absolutely laughing out loud at the liberals take on this election. Even the NY race. An uncharismatic, nerdy conservative comes withing winning the seat against the apparatus of the DNC and RNC. Plus Vic quotes the liberal talking point of "has been conservative since the Civil War" (which on a side issues is quite telling of the democratic parties racist leanings) but the area has been reshaped for years. This is fun. The independents told Obama and the rest of the liberals they aren't falling for the BS anymore.

Vic, is would be better and more genuine to just say, "It worked well for your guys" but spin away. Reality is a bitch. ww

"Owens will win by double digits." ~Victory is Ours

Owens fought for his life. An almost unknown nearly bumped him out. Scozzafava "the moderate" got bumped out completely. So don't give me any of your usual tripe about how the GOP needs to run "moderates".

Your postings are getting more clownish every day, Vic. Do you wear a big red rubber nose while you comment?

"Plus Vic quotes the liberal talking point of "has been conservative since the Civil War""

It's been Republican since the Civil War.

Let's not confuse 'conservative' and 'Republican' - they aren't the same thing, remember?

Or did you forget the talking points all of you were parroting the day before Hoffman and Palin were defeated?

Vic

Vic you don't seem to get that we agree with you on alot of NY23 issues. I to hope that it ends up on bumper stickers and tshirts I would wear one proudly.

Owens was to the right of Scuzzy and thus I am happy to have a more moderate Democrat in office. Would I have been happier if Hoff won? Yeah probably but in the end Scuzzy lost and that is what is important to us.

As for the Social Conservative comments, I agree with you. I want SC's in office because they have actual values, but they should not run on social issues. What we need is fiscal conservatism, people who will actually REDUCE the deficit and get rid of idiotic ideallic social programs that are nothing but a drain on the system.

Hell even if we could FIX those social programs I would be happy. There is a place for programs like SS, Welfare and Medicarre but when they become money pits its time to rethink the strategy. Lets stop spending, lower taxes AND decrease the deficit for a few years until the economy recovers fully.

We need a government that will stay out of our bedrooms and personal lives, AND stay out of our wallets except for constitutionally essential needs like military, commerce, courts etc. There is no RIGHT to Healtchcare, Cable TV, Jobs, Housing etc.

A RIGHT is something that you were given at birth which does not need anything from me to exist. A RIGHT is life, liberty, and PURSUIT of happiness. You don't have a right to BE happy, only to pursue happiness.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights which made this the greatest country on Earth only garantees liberties which cost nobody else ANYTHING. There is no mandate in these documents that says Government must provide any of the social crap that Libs push using OUR Tax money.

Now people like Vic, Adrian, SAUD, S.Green etc are probably on the same page as Obama. They want to see this country ripped apart and rebuilt using a socialist framework and with a "Bill of Rights" which spells out what the government MUST do for you not what the government CANT do to you.

I say you are all traitors if you believe that. But You have a right to speak your mind and I served in the military so that you could KEEP that right. I however retain my right to oppose you as often as possible.

Re: "It's been Republican since the Civil War."

Not according to wiki.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NY-23

I have to confess to being unable to understand recent actions taken by the Obama Administration. Not the social restructuring "stuff" they're trying to jam down our throats, it's the tone deaf nature of their use of the power and majesty of the Office of Presidency of the United States.

The risk they took with that foolish attempt to get the Olympics for Chicago was beyond understanding. They squandered the prestige that comes with the title of POTUS they way they squandered the TARP funds. Then, instead of using surrogates, the White House directly injected itself into all three of the off-year elections that the media was watching.

There is no way to view the election results from any of those three elections as a "big win" for Obama. The only thing you can say for Owens is he got the seat. In the other two elections the Democrat candidates got kicked in their seat, despite Obama's active participation in the contests.

For an organization that made only few major gaffs during the campaign (all of which the msm ignored), their tone deaf, arrogant behavior in recent months is stunning. None of this enhances Obama's stature or increases the likelihood of wavering Senators and Representatives to be willing to accede to his wishes.

Hey VIC, here's hoping you, Adrian, jp2, and Stevie Green keep drinking the kool aid. If the economy is still in the tank come Nov 2010, I'll be really interested in your excuses about why the Democrats took another one in the ass.

I'm sure you'll think of something.

"Take it in the ass?" Are you gay?

If the economy is in the tank a year from now then yes, I suspect Dems will suffer further loses.

Think about that. Everything else being equal, the country will have to be in bad ship in order for Dems to lose next year. Isn't that exactly what you're saying? (aside from coming onto me with your gay innuendos)

Think about that.

OK, I thought about it. If the economy improves substantially over the next year, the Dems will be in a strong position going into the mid-terms.

Today the dollar dropped almost a full percentage point. In the last 8 months, while Pelosi and Obama have been deficit spending like crazy, it has lost 15% of its value. At that rate, it will lose another 22% by November, 2010.

Oil has been tracking the dollar. Oil was up a full percentage point today, up 78% over the last 8 months. At that rate, oil will be up another 115% by November, 2010.

Think about that.

"Today the dollar dropped almost a full percentage point.".

Yes, too bad you haven't a clue as to why it dropped.

We're in a recession, remember.

The Fed is holding interest rates down because we're in a recession, remember?

Dollar declines as Fed holds interest rates low - (AP)

NEW YORK -- The dollar declined after the Federal Reserve held its benchmark interest rate at a record low near zero and again pledged to keep it there for an "extended period" to foster the fragile economic recovery.

I wish I'd said that - oh wait, I did.

Higher interest rates can support a currency as investors transfer funds in search of better returns.

In late New York trading Wednesday, the 16-nation euro rose to $1.4888 from $1.4702 late Tuesday, while the British pound advanced to $1.6583 from $1.6402. Meanwhile, the dollar climbed to 90.74 Japanese yen from 90.32 yen.

The Bank of England and European Central Bank make announcements on Thursday. Economists expect the ECB to hold its key interest rate at 1 percent, while the U.K.'s central bank is expected to keep rates at 0.5 percent for an eighth straight month.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues warned that while economic activity is stronger, rising joblessness and hard-to-get-credit for many people and companies could restrain the rebound in the months ahead.

The Fed kept the target range for its bank lending rate at zero to 0.25 percent and made no major changes to a program to help drive down mortgage rates.

Traders have lately been borrowing the low-yielding dollar to buy assets that give better returns, a market play called a "carry trade." That keeps the value of the buck lower, as such trade weighed down the yen earlier this decade.

"Oil has been tracking the dollar. Oil was up a full percentage point today, up 78% over the last 8 months. At that rate, oil will be up another 115% by November, 2010."

Yeah, but most us know that the trend won't continue unabated, so there really is no worry about oil rising 115% - but I'm sure Fox News wants you to believe that's possible, and we know that some people will believe anything Fox News tells them.

The problem with your theory, Steve Green, is that the discount rate has been the same since January, all during the time that the dollar has been tanking.

http://prime-rate.info/discount.php

Econ 101 will tell you that the real reason the dollar has fallen off the cliff is deficit spending. There's a load of information on this subject on the net. Here's one article.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/inflation/i/dollar_decline.htm

The dollar's decline since March has been due to Obama's spending. It will continue unless and until something changes.

I hope you're right about the oil price; I'm afraid you're not. Oil has been much higher than it is now.

The problem with your theory, is that the dollar tanked 40% during the 8 year Bush administration and during that time the deficit rose and fell.

The deficit does not drive the value of the dollar.

Big money is borrowing dollars at low interest rates and investing in China and Pacific rim emerging economies.

The Fed is holding interest rates down because we're in a recession, remember?

Yes, but take it another step. The Fed is holding interest rates down because businesses, particularly small businesses, borrow money to expand or bridge cash flow gaps. Providing such capital is what the stock market was supposed to provide, but it's so regulated that most small businesses are frozen out (been that way for decades). So here we are in this trap that the Fed has to hold interest rates artificially low to spur economic growth, but at the same time, low interest rates lowers the value of the dollar compared to other currencies. Eventually higher energy prices and higher prices on imported products will cause inflation and the Fed will have to raise interest rates and risk stagnating the economy.

If Obama wanted to really do something significant he would break the link between interest rates and access to low cost loans for small businesses. That would allow the dollar to hold it's value against other currencies and keep energy prices low without stagnating the economy.

We already have a government Small Business Administration, so it just needs some legislative tweaks and funds to loan out money with interest rates tied to how many employees they keep and add. The more jobs they create the lower the interest rate. Now that would stimulate the economy and for a lot less money than the stimulus bill spent.

The hope was that Obama was this smart out-of-the-box thinker, but I haven't seen anything yet that counters the empty suite label that's starting to stick even with people who voted for him last year.

The dollar tanked during 2001-2009, but deficit spending and the debt rose during those years as well. Deficit spending, the debt, and the value of the dollar all fluctuated in that 8 year period, and, for the most part, the value of the dollar correlated with those two numbers very closely.

Your theory is that the dollar decline is coupled with the discount rate. But, between late 2005 and mid-2007, the discount rate rose while the dollar declined. Your theory doesn't work.

We'll see, won't we. The further the dollar declines (and it will, because of continued deficit spending) the tougher it will be for the Dems, especially as gasoline heads toward $5 a gallon.

Your theory is that the dollar decline is coupled with the discount rate. But, between late 2005 and mid-2007, the discount rate rose while the dollar declined. Your theory doesn't work.

The dollar declines when the interest rate the Fed sets is less than that of other stable currencies, so you can't look at these numbers in isolation. Right now a foreign investor sees a rising U.S. deficit and near zero return for buying our debt, and thus, the value of the dollar suffers. Increase the interest rate on that debt to say 5 or 6 percent and the dollar will rise against other currencies regardless of the deficit. The problem with doing so is not only the increased cost of financing our debt, but it stagnates the economy because so many businesses depend on loans to expand operations or bridge cash flow gaps.

As I explained in post #31, the solution is provide low interest loans to businesses through an expanded SBA while allowing the Fed to set interest rates to control inflation. Unfortunately, implanting such solutions requires real leadership.

Everywhere in what used, quaintly, to be known as the "western" and/or as the "civilized" world, whenever voters are given the choice between the (il)Liberal and the "liberal" (RINOs note well!) they will ALWAYS elect the (il)Liberal.

Every time!

American voters -- and only American voters, when given a choice between an (il)Liberal and a true-blue conservative, will every time elect the conservative. Witness the Reagan, Palin and Contract With America miracles.

If the fascists presently be-squatting and be-manuring the feral gummint's congressional and administrative premises manage to force through any form of state-controlled "health-'insurance'" and to thus essentially effect the feral gummint's ownership of our very bodies and absolute control of our lives, America -- like every other western and once-civilized state (including, say, Canada, once-great Britain and Australia) will never again have an electoral choice but the "choice" offered (these past thirty-odd years) Brits, Canucks, Aussies and Kiwis: between fascissocialist and very fascissocialist!