DLA For Sunday 052310

Finally, and MMD Reporter tells the truth.

Hey folks,

This is amazing. It really is. A Mainstream Reporter going AGAINST the template. According to The Wall Street Journal - Anti-Incumbent? Try Anti-Obama By FRED BARNES Serious Democratic analysts concede it's their party that's facing trouble in the fall.

The hordes are not massing at the gates of Washington—not yet. They won't arrive until after the midterm congressional election in November. Most are likely to be Republicans, a good number of them old Washington hands. Yesterday's primary elections, including the impressive victories of Republican Rand Paul in Kentucky and Democrat Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania, didn't change that.

The idea that anti-incumbent fever, striking equally at Democrats and Republicans, is the defining feature of the 2010 election is as misguided as last year's notion that President Obama's oratory would tilt the nation in favor of his ambitious agenda. Yet the media, echoing the Obama White House, has adopted anti-incumbency as the all-purpose explanation of this year's political developments.

Their latest (supposed) evidence: Mr. Sestak's ouster of incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter. But incumbency, though it played a part, wasn't the main reason Mr. Specter (who switched parties from Republican to Democrat last year) lost. After voting against the 80-year-old Mr. Specter in five elections dating back to 1980, a majority of Democratic voters in Pennsylvania couldn't bring themselves to vote for him yesterday. They didn't trust him.

Mr. Sestak, a House member since 2006, played on this sentiment. He was the "real" Democrat, Mr. Sestak insisted, while Mr. Specter was an imposter. Recognizing that Mr. Specter might be vulnerable, the White House leaned on Mr. Sestak to stay out of the primary. Mr. Sestak stubbornly refused.

Nor was Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas forced into a runoff with Lt. Gov. Bill Halter yesterday because she's an incumbent. A bigger problem for her was a reputation as an unreliable vote for Democratic initiatives—Mr. Halter attacked her from the left—and polls consistently showed her badly trailing any Republican opponent.

It's true that anti-incumbency was marginally responsible for the defeats recently of three-term Republican Sen. Robert Bennett of Utah and 14-term Democratic Rep. Alan Mollohan of West Virginia. Voters do at times get tired of elected officials. But Mr. Bennett lost chiefly because he was seen as having "gone Washington" and too eager to compromise with Democrats. Mr. Mollohan was defeated by a conservative opponent more in tune with the state's drift to the right over the past decade.

What demolishes the notion of anti-incumbency as a scourge on both parties are the calculations of credible political analysts—Democrats and Republicans from Charles Cook to Jay Cost to Nathan Silver to James Carville—about the outcome of November's general election. They believe dozens of congressional Democrats either trail Republican challengers or face toss-up races, while fewer than a handful of Republicans are in serious re-election trouble.

Even Gallup, hardly known for its bold analysis of polling data, doesn't appear to regard anti-incumbency as a problem for Republicans. Its current surveys indicate Republicans are likely to trounce Democrats in November.

"Republicans have had a significant turnout advantage in midterm elections," Gallup said. "This means . . . Republican candidates would most likely receive a higher percentage of the actual votes cast [and] would also be virtually guaranteed major seat gains, possibly putting them in range of recapturing majority control of the U.S. House."

In Dr. Paul's defeat of Trey Grayson in the Kentucky Senate primary, he benefited from anti-Washington and anti-establishment feelings rampant across the country. Mr. Grayson, Kentucky's secretary of state, was the favorite of Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, and suffered for that. Like Mr. McConnell, he defended earmarks. Dr. Paul, who'd never before run for office, is an eye doctor in rural Bowling Green and the son of Ron Paul, the renegade Republican congressman and presidential candidate from Texas. He denounced earmarks.

But there was more to his 59% to 35% victory than simply exploiting popular trends. Dr. Paul was by far the better candidate. He kept his most controversial views—opposition to the Iraq war, doubts about sending American troops to Afghanistan—largely under wraps. Instead, he sounded like a vintage 1994, Contract-with-America Republican, calling for term limits and a balanced budget amendment.

And Dr. Paul wasn't shy about his support from tea party activists. They turned out to be anything but a stigma on his campaign, contrary to their characterization in the media. Without their fervent backing, he might have lost. That should be a lesson to other Republican candidates.

Republicans suffered one significant setback on Tuesday. Their polling suggested they might win the special election to fill the House seat of the late Democratic Representative John Murtha. The heavily Democratic district wraps around Pittsburgh in western Pennsylvania. A victory there, Republicans figured, could foreshadow a Republican landslide in the fall.

But their candidate, businessman Tim Burns, lost badly to Mark Critz, a former Murtha aide. Mr. Burns failed to stir Republican turnout with his anti-Obama message. In contrast, Democratic turnout was buoyed by the furious Senate race between Mr. Specter and Mr. Sestak. Republicans insist the mix of voters will be different in the fall. We'll see.

If there's a Republican wave in November, Republicans will capture the Senate seats in Kentucky and Arkansas and probably in Pennsylvania as well. The most important political event of the week may have been the revelation that the Democratic Senate candidate in Connecticut, the state's Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, had falsely claimed to be a Vietnam veteran. That gives a Republican a chance to win in Connecticut, too—and maybe even a Senate majority.

That's right folks. Even some in the MMD can't help but tell you the truth. It IS all about Obama and Crew. It is all ABOUT the Insane Liberal Agenda. Thank you Mr. Barnes. You are the Winner of the Display of Logic Award. Thank you for at least attempting to report the TRUTH.
Peter