Did The Democrats Win The Election Or Did The Republicans Lose It
Liberals in this country are busy slapping each other on the back and congratulating themselves over the recent victories for the Democrats. And rightfully so. The people who espouse their ideology are in power now, and after over a decade of Republican rule that probably seems like a breath of fresh air.
But what bothers me is that a lot of people are calling this a victory for liberalism or Democrat ideas/principles. I just don’t think it is. I don’t think Democrats won this election, I think Republicans lost it and Democrats came into power by default.
Republicans lost 28 seats in the House to Democrats. But how many of those seats did Democrats win because the Republican was corrupt or caught up in scandal? Quite a lot of them, it turns out. Here’s a list of Republicans who lost due to scandal:
- J.D. Hayworth - One of the biggest recipients of Abramoff money in Congress.
- Tom DeLay - Heavily involved in the Abramoff scandal, and resigned due to other scandals as well. He didn’t run, but his name stayed on the ballot making his seat an easy pickup for Democrats.
- Bob Ney - Also heavily involved in the Abramoff scandal.
- Mark Foley - Resigned after it was revealed that he’d been having cybersex with teenaged Congressional pages, but his name stayed on the ballot.
- Don Sherwood - Lost re-election after it came to light shortly before the election that he’d paid off a woman he’d been having an affair with so that she would not press charges against him for choking her.
- John E. Sweeney - Lost re-election after a myriad of scandals, including accusations of domestic abuse from his wife and showing up drunk at a frat party.
- Cut Weldon - Lost re-election after some shady lobbying deals between himself and his daughter were revealed.
- Richard Pombo - Lost re-election due to connections with Jack Abramoff, as well as allegations of questionable campaign donations, misuse of official government resources and nepotism.
- Sue Kelly - Lost re-election due in large part to claims by her opponent that she knew what Mark Foley was doing with teenaged pages but didn’t do anything to stop it.
- Nancy Johnson - Lost re-election after being tied to the Jack Abramoff scandal by a heavy ad-blitz funded by MoveOn.org.
- E. Clay Shaw Jr. - Tied in with Abramoff money through DeLay, money he refused to return despite Democrat calls to do so.
- John Hostettler - Was somewhat tied to Abramoff money through DeLay, had a warrant issued for his arrest stemming from an incident where he was caught with a concealed weapon in an airport.
- Jim Ryun - Accepted some $30,000 from Tom DeLay and didn’t return any of it. Also suffered from accusations of having bought a townhouse from DeLay’s PAC group for less than market value.
- Charlie Bass - Lost after refusing to return DeLay money (though he was vocal in calling for DeLay to step aside) and also an embarrassing incident where one of his campaign staffers trolled liberal blogs posing as a someone else.
- Mike Fitzpatrick - Took some $21,500 in donations from Bob Ney, Duke Cunningham and TomDeLay.
That’s fifteen incumbent Republican Representatives who were mixed up in scandal, corruption and connections to corruption (perceived and otherwise). I’d argue that none of them lost because their opponent was the better choice for voters but rather because their scandals, shady dealings and connections to corruption (as tacit as they may be in some instances) discouraged voters. Made them not want to show up at the polls or vote for someone else.
Fifteen races where Democrats won because the incumbent Republican was tainted.
Nearly all of these folks come from traditionally strong Republican districts, so had it not been for the scandal and corruption they would more than likely all still be in office. Meaning that the Democrats would have picked up only 13 seats in the House on election day rather than the 28 they did get, which in turn would mean that the Dems would still be in the minority.
The same is true in the Senate:
- Conrad Burns - Heavily involved in the Abramoff controversy.
- Mike DeWine - Had some ad campaign controversies (one ad showed the World Trade Center with smoke added, another falsely accused his opponent of not paying his taxes), was smeared with the Ohio GOP’s scandals and controversies, and was one of the most liberal Republican Senators in Washington.
- Rick Santorum - Received contributions to his charity from a contractor who was subsequently awarded a federal contract.
Again, Republican incumbents involved in scandals and controversies who subsequently lost to their Democrat opponents. Did the Democrats earn these victories, or did they merely win by default because the voters were fed up with the corruption and scandal from the Republican incumbent?
I think the latter’s true. And if it’s true, then these men wouldn’t have lost their seats and Democrats wouldn’t have a majority in the Senate either.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that the Democrats didn’t legitimately gain ground this election. They did, but as liberals go around talking about their “mandate” we should remember that a lot of the elections they won were low-hanging fruit in districts that are traditionally and consistently conservative Republican. Even in races where the incumbent Republican wasn’t directly plagued by scandal and controversy he or she was still tainted by the larger scandals that involved other GOP candidates.
I’m also not saying that corrupt or scandal plagued-Republicans didn’t deserve to lose. They did, but the point here is that Democrats didn’t get their current majority through a victory of ideas of policies. They got their current majority because Republicans shot themselves in the foot with corruption, scandal and an abandonment of the principles they embraced when they first got into office.
BR41NM4660T
richNJ
robert108
likwidshoe
ellinas
Proof
