It is actually amusing reading the Sunday Left Angeles Times.
For on page one, for all the world to see, is an article that seems to continue the shilling the fish wrap is doing for the Democrats this election season.
The headline reads "GOP flies high, but midterm won't be a breeze".
Of course it will not be a breeze. Anything can happen between now and election day to change the dynamic of the race for congress, governor's offices and statehouse legislatures.
The article's main thrust is the third paragraph:
But despite all its assets, the GOP still faces hurdles. It suffers a disadvantage in fundraising, a national organization in shambles, an inconsistent message, and bruises from a tumultuous primary season — all factors that could make the difference between winning and winning big.
Yes, it is true that the Republican party is not the party with the cash at it's disposal as do the Democrats. After all, the Republicans do not have the labor union's shilling for them. And they do not have the power of celebrity that the Democrats do. But money can only buy so much. Just ask some Republicans that had the cash and still lost on election day. George Allen is one. So is Rick Santorum. It is not always about the money. It is the mood of the electorate at that election cycle as well. And it was not very pretty for the Republicans.
National organization is important, but can only go so far. They can dole out money and troops to some candidates. But again it is all about the mood of the voters.
The message is not inconsistent at all. It is no to the Dear Leader, President Obama, and his policies. There does not have to be an absolute manifesto, but a clear bullet-point number of proposals. And it does not have to be right now. As we enter the home stretch of this campaign, within the next two to three weeks, the Republicans will put it all on paper and run on the bullet--points. Just as the Contract With America in 1994. Why should they give any time for the Democrats to rebut it? I find that it is smart on the Republicans part not to come out with a plan too early.
And please, citing "bruises from a tumultuous primary season" as a potential drawback is stupid.
The fact is that because so many Republicans are looking at a favorable terrain is why they chose this time around to run. A primary like the one that Sen. John "F--- You" McCain and J. D. Hayworth had is a good thing. It means that Sen. "F--- You" McCain is going to be held more accountable if he wants to win reelection. Had he coasted, it may have been the old "bipartisan" McCain and not the more conservative McCain that won the primary. And trust me, J. D. Hayworth, as do I, would rather see this John "F--- You" McCain than the "can we just all get along" McCain.
Primaries are good for a political party on the ascendancy.
OK, so you think that the Times would leave well enough alone.
But no, in a case of but one the other hand, in the same Sunday edition comes this headline about California political races, "Because of the economy, a more conservative electorate emerges in California".
I thought that the Times cited that it was going to be a tough road for the Republicans in this election season?
Yes, it does seem on the surface to be a kind of sort of slight of hand.
But, read the whole thing because it cites that favorite buzz word of political scientists and the like.
The thrust of the article can be best summed up this way.
Sure, the California voters is teed-off right now. The economy sucks and they do not think that the government should be taking any more money now while we have to tighten our belts. But we like all the state services. Just want it ran more efficiently. And eventually, all will be forgiven and the independents will eventually elect Democrats. Maybe not this time around, but maybe next time.
While about 20% of registered California voters are decline-to-state, many are in fact and indeed conservatives. Many have opted out of the California Republican party because of the leftward shift under the titular leader, Gov. Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger. Many did not realize until election day that both the Democrat and Republican parties opened up the primary to decline-to-state voters. It may have played an out come in who got the nominations for the state constitutional offices and the United States senate. But trust me, at least half are frustrated Republicans.
A side note.
Something not noted in this article is that in San Diego county, where the Democrats seemed to be poised to become the majority party, not so fast.
It appears that the Republicans have gained back a small majority of registered voters and are now ahead by 891. That is a lot of work after the election cycle of 2008. And it shows that many of the Democrat registered voters were in it to vote for the Dear Leader, President Obama. Not long-term voters by any stretch of the imagination.
It also shows a trend nationwide that Republicans are taking registration seriously and making a real effort to get people back into the fold or new voters.
But remember, the Times must point out that Democrats comprise about 45% of the electorate and Republicans 31%. This clearly does not account for the changes made in this election cycle.
The point is that the Times seems to not really get it.
This is going to be a Republican year. It maybe one that none of us have seen in our lifetimes. The only aspect of this is how much will the Republicans will gain. Will be a devastating number of seats in congress, the senate and governor's races or a large number be not all that defined. That is the real story. But do not expect the Left Angeles Times to write about that.