Republican Brian Bilbray beat Democrat Francine Busby in the special election to fill the San Diego congressional seat vacated by the convicted Randy "Duke" Cunningham.
The media dubbed this race a "bellwether" for the fall midterm elections. (For whom does the bellwether toll? It does not toll for thee.) It was also a top priority for the same Daily Kos/MyDD Nutroots movement that has also embraced local dream candidate Darcy Burner. Instapundit reports that the Nutroots track record is 0 and 19 (or 1 and 19 if you want to be generous). And speaking of Nutroots, you don't want to miss this hilarious Kos-kids TV ad for Ned Lamont, who is challenging Sen. Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primary (watch the top video, "Right Now"). My free and friendly advice to the Darcy Burner campaign: do a similar ad using local Nutroots volunteers with David Goldstein filling in for Kos!
The people have spoken.
--this if funny because only the democrats would make such a dumb claim.
Posted by: Andy on June 7, 2006 09:08 AM(Ouch! That's gonna leave a mark!)
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 7, 2006 09:37 AMKLOWNstein has never been one to take seriously.
I find him quite amusing. KLOWNstein is obsessed with celebrity status. He even thinks Brad Paisley wrote this song about HIM!!
“Celebrity”
Someday Goldy’s gonna be famous, does he have talent…… well no
These days he don’t really need it thanks to reality shows
Goldy can’t wait to date a supermodel, can’t wait to sue his dad
Can’t wait to wreck his Prius Hybrid on his way to rehab
[1st Chorus]
‘Cause when Goldy’s a celebrity
It’s adios reality
Goldy can act just like a fool
People think he’s cool
Just ‘cause he’s on a Blog
Goldy can throw a major fit
When his latte isn’t just how he likes it
When they say he’s gone insane
Hell blame it on the fame
And the pressures that go with
Being a celebrity
Goldy gets to cry to Barbara Walters when things don’t go his way
He’ll get community service no matter which law he break
He’ll make the supermarket tabloids, they’ll write some awful stuff
But the more they run his name down the more his price goes up
[2nd Chorus]
‘Cause when Goldy’s a celebrity
It’s adios reality
No matter what you do
People think he’s cool
Just ‘cause he’s on a Blog
Goldy can fall in and out of love (WITH FELLA’S)
Have marriages that barely last a month
When they go down the drain
He’ll blame it on the fame
And say it’s just so tough
Being a celebrity
[Bridge]
So let’s hitch up the wagons and head out west
To the land of the KLOWNS and the sun
Goldy will be real world homo jacka$$ millionaire
Bend over Ron Sims, here Goldy comes!!
[3rd Chorus]
‘Cause when Goldy’s a celebrity
It’s adios reality
No matter what you do
People think he’s cool
Just ‘cause he’s on Blog
Being a celebrity
Yeah celebrity
Slightly modified….and personalized!
I think the general consensus is that the Republicans will loose House and Senate seats in the fall election. If somehow the Republicans pick-up seats, does anyone want to bet that the MSM and the Dem's will find someway to spin it and claim a moral victory?
Looks like they got nervous and started to make excuses several days in advance to explain away defeat.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on June 7, 2006 10:09 AMAs for Kos/Goldy, etc. they just don't get it. Most of America is done with the hippy/ progressive / baby boomer experiment. The country is turning more and more conservative. And especially on important issues like maintaining families and national defense. I'm an old Gen X'er and most of the people I know are far more conservative than the Boomer generation. And there's less divorce and more emphasis on family in my wide circle as well.
Progressives are fighting a losing battle against both the turn in tide away from the boomer hippy liberalism as boomers die off, and the failure of their collectivist ideas such as communism, socialism, unions, etc. They just don't have anything to offer anyone other than more government, higher taxes, and NutRoots like fantasies.
But I hope they keep it up, one can't make their stuff up.
Next on the list to go down in flames: Darcy Burner.
It came in somewhere in the 30% range!
All that money spent and less than half of the voters cared enough to vote, so much for the democrats plan to "nationalize" the elections this year..........
Posted by: jaybo on June 7, 2006 10:27 AMI don't use the term myself -- at least when I am discussing elections.
Posted by: Jim Miller on June 7, 2006 10:59 AM"The term bellwether originates from the middle English bellewether, and refers to the practice of using a castrated ram (or “wether”) with a bell around his neck to lead a flock of sheep."
That's an apt description of the MSM media today, neutered rams, e.g., Dan Rather, leading the sheep, i.e., the libs.
I apologize in advance for posting the whole letter - I can't find it on the web to post just the link - but it is well worth reading
The Meaning of the San Diego Special Election for 2006
The Democrats lost in San Diego last night in a special election many thought they would win. After all, the race was to fill a seat left vacant by a Republican congressman who had to resign when he pled guilty of corruption. President Bush's approval rating in a California Field Poll this week is around 28% percent (the lowest in that poll's history since just before President Nixon resigned in 1974). And in the first round of voting, the Democrat, Francine Busby got 44% of the vote and the Republican Brian Bilbray, a former congressman, led a big field of Republicans with only 15% of the vote.
But with 96% of the vote reported, Brian Bilbray has 49.48% of the vote and the Democrat has 45.28% (there are two minor candidates). With a margin of almost 5,000 votes, Bilbray seems certain to win.
So what happened? Why was the Democrat only able to go from 44% to 45%? How did the Republican go from 15% to victory?
Here's the bottom line: A conservative reform-candidate won in San Diego last night. The result of this election speaks volumes about what will succeed and what will fail for Republicans this November.
This could have been an unpleasant morning
Had the Democrats won, this would be a morning of giddy excitement for Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean. Their allies in Washington and across the country would have been energized and Republicans would have been panic stricken. House Minority Leader Pelosi would be on the phone to every major donor explaining what their victory meant and why it justified more resources for the fall campaign. The left's columnists and pundits would have filled the airwaves and thenewspaper and magazines with predictions of imminent Republican disaster. The DCCC chairman, Congressman Rahm Emanuel, would be on television this morning claiming a harbinger for the fall election. The elite media would have been thrilled at the prospect of a Republican loss of the House this fall. We would have heard the phrase "bellwether election" over and over this morning on the morning shows.
Instead, we had almost no coverage.
They lost.
This is now a fact.
It is a big fact.
I have lived through this kind of cycle. In 1994, there were two special elections in which Republicans gained Democratic seats. The first was in Oklahoma with Frank Lucas. The second was in Kentucky with Ron Lewis. On the night of the first victory, Congressman Bill Paxon (the NRCC chairman), Joe Gaylord (our planner and adviser) and I sat at the NRCC (National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee) headquarters and decided to go for broke in the much more difficult Kentucky seat. We knew that if we could win two Democratic seats going into the fall election we would create an excitement that would arouse money and energy from our supporters, interest from the news media, and make a fall victory more likely.
It was a courageous decision on Bill Paxon's part because it meant we were going to invest a lot of our resources into trying to ignite a wave of enthusiasm. It worked. Those two victories were dramatic steps toward the Contract with America and the 53-seat sweep in the fall, which gave us a GOP majority in the House for the first time in 40 years.
How we won
I know Brian Bilbray. Brian Bilbray was with me in Washington at the beginning of the 104th Congress and was key to implementing the needed reforms of the Contract with America. Yesterday, Brian Bilbray won with a similar agenda of real change. The three dynamics that drove the outcome of this election are all consistent with the pattern of real change outlined in my new paperback edition of Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America.
The first was a determined effort by Brian Bilbray to talk about controlling spending, changing Washington and securing the border and stopping illegal immigration. Bilbray did not run to "stay the course" and help Washington; Bilbray ran to change Washington. He ran to return to the spirit of 1994 and the Contract with America.
The second was a steady drumbeat by talk radio and the NRCC and the Bilbray campaign to define Francine Busby as a liberal who would raise taxes, increase welfare, and favor amnesty. This had worked well enough that by last Thursday the race was tied 45% to 45% in a public poll. She had gained one point and Bilbray had gained 30 during the runoff.
The third (and most fascinating) was an enormous revelation by the Democrat. At a rally, someone told her (in Spanish) that they were for her but were undocumented (meaning they were in the United States illegally). Ms. Busby responded by suggesting that it was OK for a person in the United States illegally to be active in her campaign. Unfortunately for her candidacy, a Minuteman volunteer in the audience caught her words on tape and gave it to San Diego talk radio hosts. The following day, her willingness to pander to non-citizens became the centerpiece of the campaign and she was on defense for the last five days until the election.
The Democrat explained that she did not mean what she said but her words dramatically focused the difference between a liberal Democrat supporting amnesty and the conservative reform candidate who believes Americans have a right to secure borders. She could not undo the power of her words on tape urging a non-citizen to be active in an American election. It is possible that after Ms. Busby's comments every undecided voter decided for Bilbray.
There are three big lessons to be learned from the dynamics that drove this election.
1. Independence and a willingness to stand up for the folks back home overcame President Bush's low approval rating. Ultimately, 2006 is not a presidential election and it will not be a referendum on the President if Republicans go home and do their job of representing the values and concerns of the people who elect them.
2. Fighting to control the border and defend the American people on illegal immigration (the House position) really works. Amnesty (the Senate bill) was clearly repudiated by Republican voters.
3. However dissatisfied Republican voters are with Washington, when they realize the Democrat is a Nancy Pelosi-Howard Dean liberal they turn against them. This means that Republican candidates this fall must be prepared to make their liberal Democrat opponents bear the burden of their positions. The Democrats cannot be allowed to hide their ideology. Remember, the Democrat had 44% in the first round and Bilbray had 15%. Busby couldn't break out beyond her liberal base. She was simply too liberal.
This can be the story again and again this fall. Republicans are not perfect but liberal Democrats are unacceptable as an alternative.
Finally, people should also note that Congressman Tom Reynolds and his team at the NRCC did their job when it really mattered. They won. By contrast, despite all the recent positive press, the DCCC chairman Congressman Rahm Emanuel and his team invested a lot of resources and lost.
Speaker Dennis Hastert and his team should have a more energetic step the rest of this week.
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and her team should have a little less energy.
Now let's see how the elite media attempts to avoid covering this result.
Your friend,
Newt Gingrich
Thanks for that post. Newt summarizes the defeat very well. He's got a lot of experience in this area obviously. He's also been on par with Dick Morris in handicapping many of the races lately.
Hopefully Reichert reads this message from Newt and gets the message loud and clear. What makes for great conservative candidates is BACKBONE. If Reichert lets Burner define the issues and gets blinded by the blueness of WA, apoligetic and wishy-washy, he will lose. If however, Reichert uses a respectful tone to define Burner for who she is, and stands pat on key issues, he will win. One of the most important issues will be the War. Burner is trying to pretend she is pro-War. She's got a family member in the military and is trying to play that as pro-military. Translation: she supports the troops but not the war. This position is easily defeated, because if Reichert comes out in whole-hearted support of the War, he will axiomatically be fully in support of the troops as well. Immigration is a little more tricky here in WA, because many agricultural businesses rely on illegals to do some of their work. But again, if Reichert simply sticks to his guns on a rational immigration policy, he will win. He doesn't have to condemn all immigrants but he does have to call for restoring order to the process. Burner will not have a retort. She will be pro immigration, but to whatever degree it will always be defined as being more lax than Reichert. Again, Reichert has to stand up and frame the issues first and put Burner on the defensive.
Conservatives don't want spineless Sam Reeds. They want strong Rob McKenna style candidates that face off with Democrats and win on superior ideas. It's Reichert's race to lose.
Also note, that the low voter turnout in CA-50 plays right into Republican hands. The Democrats can only muster the GOTV style energy once every four years or so, and to do that, they have to beat the Hatred drum as loud as they can. Midtern elections don't have a loud enough drumbeat of hatred, and short of grabbing moonbats by their nose rings, Democrats just can't get these idiots out to vote. It's hilarious.
Progressive ideas are losing. America doesn't want socialism. It does not want pacifism, it does not want the UN in control of world destiny, etc. All we have to do is support candidates that are unapoligetic about an individual centric, freedom oriented, property rights protecting, live and let live Western world. The US is superior for all of these reasons and when the Kossacks are forced to state their true intentions, it's easy to see that they are anti-American and easily defeated.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 7, 2006 12:39 PMDon't be fooled - there are many behind-the-scene efforts ongoing right now to educate illegals on how they can vote.
Below is an eye-opening excerpt from the offial Washington State website which describes what is needed to register to vote in this state:
"If you register by mail and do not have a Washington State driver's license, Washington State ID card, or a Social Security number, you will be required to provide one of the following items when you cast your ballot.
Valid photo ID
Valid tribal ID of a federally recognized Indian tribe in Washington State
Copy of a current utility bill
Current bank statement
Copy of a current government check
Copy of a current paycheck
A government document that shows both your name and address
If you do not provide one of the above items either before or at the time of voting, your ballot will be treated as a provisional ballot."
Oh yeah, the website also states that: "To register to vote in the state of Washington, you must be:
A citizen of the United States
A legal resident of Washington State"
DOES ANYONE ELSE SEE WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE? If someone has already knowingly and willingly signed other documentation falsely (i.e., use of a false Social Security number to get a job and/or a Driver's License)why would they be afraid of falsing stating they were a US citizen? And, in Washington State and maybe your state too, if they didn't have a Driver's License or SS# when they registered to vote, all they have to do when they go to the cast their ballot is to provide ONE of the items listed above (how about just a utility bill?) FOLKS THIS IS SCARY
Citizens from both parties should be very concerned with this prospect Can you imagine how many protested elections this will lead to?
Please review your State's registration rules (you can find the link "Register to Vote" on the Congress.Org webite). Then, get busy with your elected officals (State and Federal) so wen can get measures in place to ensure only legal U.S. Citzens are voting in our elections.
After all, this doesn't just involve illegal immigrants coming from Mexico to work, but it also involves radical terrorists who are here to do us nothing but harm.
DEMAND YOUR STATE GOVERNMENT AND FEDERAL CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS TAKE ACTION. THIS IS A MATTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY.
Thats why both senator WA and democrats and some traitor republics put illegals on the top US citizen.
Illegals treat this country so bad , guest worker amnesty pass in 20 years will 217 million more peoples from illegal and 50 billion spend in month for their welfare and medicals , and we pay more tax payer , save our kids...!!
politic sell out citizen because their greedy and for coorporation,they wanna destroy this country really bad
The 8th is a Democratic district. When Darcy Burner triumphs this fall you will cry like a baby.
Posted by: MountOlympus on June 7, 2006 08:32 PMWhen Darcy Burner triumphs in the 8th District is when h*!! will freeze over.
Posted by: KS on June 7, 2006 09:35 PM"This was a republican district - than bilbray won was expected. Notice how close the margin was."
It's easy to make that claim after the fact, but before the election Busby and her supporters certainly weren't acting like they expected to lose.
There was a lot of money poured into the Busby campaign from outside the district, and that doesn't happen when a candidate is expected to lose.
A more telling sign might be the large amount of money the Busby campaign spent on ads encouraging people to vote for the Libertarian and Independent candidates in the runoff.
Interesting concept. Asking the voters to NOT give you their votes, by running ads seemingly coming from the other candidates. A practice not only stupid, but corrupt as well.
Posted by: ewaggin on June 8, 2006 02:50 AM