If You Ever Feel Discouraged . . .

. . . think about Ann Marie Buerkle’s victory in NY-25. She is now six weeks away from being a member of Congress, but what about six weeks ago?

It was Sunday, Oct. 17, and Pete Da Tech Guy and I were driving on our way to cover the Buerkle campaign, when I got a call from the Lonely Conservative. The headline in that morning’s Syracuse Post-Standard was devastating:

Dan Maffei leads Anne Marie Buerkle
by 12 points in new poll

The poll showed Maffei with a 51-39 lead. If this poll was accurate, Buerkle was doomed. When we stopped for lunch at a McDonald’s in Hancock, N.Y., I put up a quick blog post scoffing at the poll, but honestly? I was heartsick.

You can’t put too much stock in polls. “Polls Are Not Campaigns,” as I’ve said, but I feared that this poll, which was a big front-page headline in the Syracuse paper, would have such a demoralizing effect on Buerkle’s supporters that it would become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The Buerkle campaign had been kind of a late addition to my campaign radar — I didn’t blog about her until Oct. 12 — and at that time, I had no idea what an onslaught of attack ads she was facing. Maffei had a 5-to-1 money advantage, and he was piling on more than $200,000 a week in TV ads accusing Buerkle of everything you could imagine.

Pete and I attended a Buerkle event in Clyde, N.Y., and there were maybe 50 people there. Maybe. Here it was, two weeks before the election, and the Republican candidate was still speaking to small groups, while Maffei had 1,000 at his rally with Bill Clinton.

This was not encouraging.

The next day, we covered a press conference near Syracuse where Buerkle pushed back against a Maffei attack ad that accused her of failing to pay her taxes. Maybe there were 50 supporters there. Maybe. And just the fact that she was having to do a press conference to answer an attack ad . . .

Look: You answer a TV ad with a TV ad. That’s just Campaign 101. Buerkle was doing a press conference, counting on the media to convey her response to this ad, which indicated that she couldn’t afford to run TV ads answering Maffei’s attacks.

This was not encouraging.

So when Pete and I left NY-25, I was seriously worried about Buerkle’s prospects. She was fighting hard, but unless something happened to change the dynamic of the race, it didn’t look like she could pull it off.

Anyway, Election Night found me in Boca Raton, Fla., amid the happy chaos of Allen West’s victory party in FL-22. It was difficult to keep track of results elsewhere, but somewhere during that madness I saw (perhaps at the Lonely Conservative) that Maffei was ahead by 3,000 votes.

Oh, well, nice try. Close, but no cigar. You win some, you lose some.

And then, the next afternoon, Left Coast Rebel posted the news that, due to late returns from Wayne County, Buerkle was now leading by more than 600 votes!

MIRACLE COMEBACK!

What happened? How had this campaign — outspent 5-to-1 by the incumbent and trailing in the polls — managed to pull off such an upset?

Remember the old saying, “Where there’s life, there’s hope”?

About five days before the election — while I was on my way to VA-9 to cover Morgan Griffith — the Maffei campaign played the “extremist” card with this ad:

OK, game over, right? She’s a kooky “anti-choice” extremist wingnut. Somebody like that can’t possibly get elected in this supposedly moderate district, right? But the Lonely Conservative didn’t see it that way:

NY25 covers all of Onondaga and Wayne Counties, and part of Cayuga and Monroe Counties. But a large portion of NY25?s voters are in Onondaga County. I did some digging and found out that there were 147,332 Catholics in Onondaga County alone in 2000. . . . I’m sure enough of those Catholics are registered voters who could swing the election in Buerkle’s favor. This race hasn’t been about social issues. It’s been about the economy, the direction of our country, and the failed policies of the current administration and Congress. By running this ad Dan Maffei just gave undecided pro-life voters a reason to vote for Ann Marie Buerkle.

See? Buerkle needed a miracle to win and, by highlighting her pro-life record in the final days of the campaign, her opponent gave her that miracle. Out of more than 200,000 votes cast in NY-25, Buerkle won by 657 votes, and how many of those votes were decided on the pro-life issue?

Da Tech Guy says “nobody outside of me, Stacy and the Lonely Conservative thought [Buerkle] was a winner,” but I had given her up for lost on Election Night.

You see that she and her supporters had every reason to become discouraged and quit. But they kept hoping and fighting and, thanks to an unexpected miracle, they won.

So hang in there. Where there’s life, there’s hope.

LIVE AT FIVE – 11.24.10

TOP NEWS

Nork Attack On South Korean Island Presents U.S. With Few Good Options

Smoke rises from buildings on Yeonpyeong Island shelled by the Norks

Right now, administration just trying to keep incident from erupting into war

Protests Over TSA Scanners, “Gate Rape” Searches Threaten To Delay Flights
Airports bracing for National Opt-Out Day protests


San Francisco Bans Happy Meals
City Council overrides mayor’s veto, imposes strict nutritional guidelines



POLITICS

Costa Hangs On, Holds Seat In CA-20

Jim Costa autographs sign during the campaign

Ekes out 3000-vote, 3.5% win in district where Democrats hold a 20- point registration edge

Allen West Profiled In WaPo




Lt. Gov. Campbell Fires Back At Miller Allegations

Lame-Duck Congress’ First Job: Prevent A Government Shutdown



THE ECONOMY, STUPID

Fed Lowers Economic Expectations For 2011

Federal Insider-Trading Probe Widens

Oracle Awarded $1.3 Billion In Copyright Suit Against SAP

Acer Unveils Windows 7, Android Tablets

Yelp Offers Location-Based Mobile Rewards

FAA Issues First Commercial Reentry License To SpaceX



SPORTS

Rangers’ Hamilton Easily Wins AL MVP

Josh Hamilton hits a grand slam against the Rays

Gets 22 of 28 first place votes

Injured QB Vince Young Asked To Leave Titans Training Facility

Brook Lopez Leads Nyets To Win Over Hawks, Stopping Three-Game Skid

Bryzgalov Makes 23 Saves As Coyotes Shut Out Oilers, Extend Win Streak To Seven

No Arbitration Offered To Yankee Veterans Jeter, Rivera, Ramirez

VMart Signs With Tigers



Longhorns Cruise Past Bearkats For Coach Barnes’ 5000th Win



FAMOUS FOR BEING FAMOUS

“Ugly Betty” Actor Kills Mother With Sword

Another victim of the Masonic conspiracy?

Michael Brea has religious meltdown; police criticized for hesitant response

Eva Regrets Not Dumping Tony The First Time He Cheated

Royal Wedding Date Set For Wills & Kate

Kim Kardashian Has No Shame
Oh, sorry, that’s not news, is it?




Jennifer Jason Leigh Files For Divorce

Cookie Monster Creates SNL Audition Tape, Campaigns To Host



FOREIGNERS

29 Confirmed Dead In NZ Mine Disaster

11 Jihadis Arrested In Belgium, Germany, Netherlands

Pentagon Report: Progress Patchy, Violence Up

UN: Haiti Cholera Spreading Faster Than Expected

Stuxnet Shoots – And Scores!



BLOGS & STUFF

Michelle Malkin: Look Who Gets A Junk-Touching Exception

JustOneMinute: She’s Cute When She’s Angry

Weasel Zippers: Obama Administration Buying Nearly A Quarter of All Ford, GM Hybrids

Jawa Report: Pelosi Now Flying Commercial

Radio Equalizer: Sharpton Calls For FCC To Take Action On Limbaugh

Althouse: Sally “Dancing Is My Religion” Quinn Denounces Bristol Palin As “Unholy”


— compiled by Wombat-socho

Presented for your consideration…

Sixty Minutes has been around since 1968, though given the show’s long-standing predilection for character assassination, cheap shots, and “investigative reporting” (but I repeat myself), one might be excused for thinking that it had been around even longer. Most conservatives have long ago given up on this miserable excuse for a “news program”, correctly evaluating it as a wretched hive of scum and agitprop, and spend the time in more productive pursuits. Still, some courageous Americans keep watch on the show so the rest of us can be spared for other, better things; one of those Americans is Joseph Fein, who comes to us from The Valley of the Shadow with a fisking of this week’s adventure into what passes for “journalism” among the demoralized remnants at CBS News. Enjoy.


–Wombat-socho

DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen: 2010 ‘Could Have Been Worse’ for Democrats

Talk about not getting it, this douchebag still wants to play class-warfare on taxes:

Van Hollen said that Democrats – who maintain control of the House through the end of the year, including during the lame-duck session where the expiring tax cuts will be considered – continue to back the president’s commitment to allow tax cuts for couples making more than $250,000 a year to come to an end.
“I think the position of the great majority in the House of Representatives is the position the president took going into the election,” he said.

Dude. You just got a historic ass-kicking. You lost 63 seats. Republicans just scored their biggest House majority since 1949. And you still think Obama’s got the winning formula? Are you even listening to yourself when you spout drivel like this?

Van Hollen, the outgoing chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, also conceded that his pre-election (and even Election Day) predictions that Democrats would hold on to the House turned out to be inaccurate.
“The pundits were clearly right about this, we were clearly wrong,” he said. “You know, I’ve drawn to the inside [straight] before when playing poker, and we hoped, obviously, that there would be some scenario where that would happen.” . . .
“We obviously hoped for the best. We did our whole cycle planning for the worst. I mean, we really did plan, and this is a case where even a lot of preparation was not enough to prevent a huge tidal wave from knocking out a lot of our members.”
“I should say that we take some consolation at the DCCC that our members and candidates have said that we did everything we possibly could do to help them, and in fact some independent analysts have said that it actually could have been worse. As bad as it was, it could, it could have been worse but for some of the steps that we took.”

Not a river in Egypt. IYKWIMAITYD.

Here’s the video, if anyone can stand to watch it:

(Hat-tip: Red Dog Report.) I’d like to see Chris Van Hollen — and Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama — in a room with the 63 House Democrats who got defeated this year. I’d like to see the bosses of the Democratic Party try to explain to the 1,800 soon-to-be-unemployed Democratic congressional staffers why it made sense to risk everything for ObamaCare, at a time when voters wanted Washington to focus on fixing the economy. Welcome to the ranks of the unemployed, Democrats.

NY-25: Maffei Concedes, Buerkle Wins

Got the good news via the Lonely Conservative, who got it from Robert Harding’s Tweet.

With last night’s concession in TX-27, Buerkle’s win puts the incoming GOP House majority at 242 seats.

A 4 p.m. press conference is scheduled.

UPDATE: Auburn (N.Y.) Citizen:

Maffei issued a statement this afternoon thanking the residents of the 25th for the opportunity to serve.
“I served every day honored to live in a community where a shy kid of modest means from a proud Syracuse family and a graduate of the Syracuse public schools could grow up to earn the trust of his community to represent you in Congress,” Maffei said in the statement. “And I learned from you every day, listening to your stories and working tirelessly on your behalf.”

I had a brief telephone interview today with Mrs. Buerkle. I’ll be writing this up for tomorrow’s American Spectator.

UPDATE II: Steven Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Buerkle’s victory “one of the biggest election surprises of the year”:

“Almost no one saw this one coming,” said GOP pollster John McLaughlin. “Ann Marie was definitely below the radar screen of most political experts.”
One person who never saw it coming was Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, who had championed Mr. Maffei as the kind of new liberal Democrat America needs and the Northeast wants. “Absent a Republican wave of historic proportions, his seat now seems out of the GOP’s reach,” wrote Mr. Dionne back in September.

Here’s your “historic proportions,” E.J.

Attagirl, Ann Marie!

UPDATE III: Publius at BigGovernment.com on the significance of NY-25: “John McCain received only 43% of the vote in this district in 2008. George W. Bush received only 48% in 2004. Hope and Change!” The Syracuse Post-Standard analyzed the arguments for and against Maffei seeking a recount.

Linked by Ruby Slippers. Thanks!

UPDATE IV: More reporting by The Hill, Roll Call and CNN, which notes:

Buerkle’s win . . . makes New York the state with the most GOP House pickups– six districts changed sides in the 2010 midterms. Republicans picked up five seats in Ohio and Pennsylvania respectively.

Someone in the comments had asked for details on the historic nature of this election:

  • In the 1946 mid-term election — a postwar backlash against Truman and 14 years of Democrat “New Deal” majorities –Republicans gained 55 House seats and held a majority of 246 seats.
  • In 1948, with Truman campaigning against the “do-nothing Congress,” the GOP lost 75 seats.
  • In 1952, with the popular wartime commander Eisenhower at the top of the Republican ticket, the GOP regained a slender House majority, 221-213.
  • In 1954, Democrats recaptured a House majority that they held for the next 40 years.
  • In 1994, Republicans gained 54 seats for a 230-204 majority.

So in 2010, Republicans gained more House seats (63) than in any election since 1938 (when they gained 81), and they now control more seats (242) than at any time since 1949.

UPDATE V: Remember that (a) Buerkle was endorsed by Sarah Palin, and (b) Buerkle is pro-life and was a former spokeswoman for Operation Rescue.

In 2008, Maffei was elected after the NRCC appeared to write off NY-25. This year, Buerkle — the kind of “right-wing extremist” that the GOP Establishment dreads — put the seat back in Republican hands, despite being out-spent 5-to-1. Maybe there’s a lesson there, huh?

UPDATE VI: Over in NY-1, Left Coast Rebel reports that Randy Altschuler has apparently come up 235 votes short in his challenge to Democrat Rep. Tim Bishop.

UPDATE VII: The Wall Street Journal notes that Maffei’s concession may allow some folks to settle their bets in the office pool. Remember that the title of my Election Day column was “Too Close to Call.”

WaPo Makes an Excellent Decision: Jennifer Rubin Hired as Blogger

This is very encouraging news indeed, and I think all leading conservatives will share the view expressed by Ed Driscoll: “The WaPo Finally Gets One Right.”

My favorite piece by Jennifer Rubin was a column she wrote for Pajamas Media in February 2009. You will recall that, at that time, many Republicans were still talking about the need to cooperate and compromise with the new president. Rush Limbaugh had become a lightning rod because of the Four Famous Words: “I hope he fails.” (I had expressed my own view of the Democratic agenda in three less-famous words: “It won’t work.”) Yet in February 2009, the question of whether the GOP should oppose or support the Obama agenda was still very much debated. It was Rubin who distilled the correct insight into a strategic maxim: “The opposition party must oppose.”

And now that the opposition party has triumphed — winning 241 House seats — by obeying that maxim, Rubin will now be positioned to provide excellent coverage of the battles ahead.

UPDATE: A friend called my attention to this Politico column by Jennifer Rubin, which I definitely do not endorse.

Strategy Lesson: State Parties Matter

For the benefit of Alex Pareene — who strangely seems to believe that campaigns are of secondary importance to who wins elections — let me unravel a bit of strategy.

When I visited Massachusetts in early October, there was clearly a grassroots “enthusiasm gap” favoring Republicans. Da Tech Guy kept saying he had that Scott Brown feeling,” and even the Boston Globe noted how fired-up the local GOP was.

Yet when Election Night returns came in, the result was an across-the-board Democratic victory in Massachusetts. Deval Patrick was re-elected governor by a 7-point margin. The NRCC’s favorite House candidate in the state, Jeff Perry in MA-10, got just 42% of the vote, and no GOP House candidate got more than 43%.

The secret of the Democrats’ success wasn’t really a secret: The Massachusetts Democratic Party outspent the state GOP more than 2-to-1:

In the final days of the fall campaign, the Democratic State Committee overwhelmed its Republican counterpart with a massive amount of spending . . .
New reports filed with the state show that from Nov. 1 to Nov. 15, the state Democratic Party outspent the Massachusetts Republican Party, $475,641 to $21,147. In the prior month, the Democrats had outspent the GOP by more than 2 to 1, $2.4 million to $1.1 million, as both parties invested heavily in advertising to support their gubernatorial candidates. Since January 2009, the Democratic Party outspent Republicans by $5.9 million to $2.6 million. . . .
John Walsh, chairman of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, said the late spending was the final piece of a seven-month effort to identify Democratic voters and get them to the polls and avoid a repeat of the special US Senate election last January, when Republican Scott Brown was elected.
He said that the party’s strategy included reaching ethnic communities and about 300,000 so-called sporadic Democratic voters and that the state committee spent heavily on field organizers, about 40 campaign offices around the state, polling to track specific races, and assessing candidates for lesser office who would need additional help.

Read the whole thing, including the excuse-making by the state GOP chairwoman, who should be voted out at the next meeting. The overall money gap between the state parties — the $3.3 million disadvantage for Republicans — was not so great that it could not have been bridged, or at least narrowed, by fundraising efforts in a state as wealthy as Massachusetts.

And that should be a lesson to grassroots Republicans everywhere: Building up the state and local party apparatus is an excellent off-year project: “Stop asking what you can do, and start doing what you can.”

Flashback: Charlie Sheen Called Ex-Wife Denise Richards ‘F***ing N****r’

One of the strangest things about porn star Capri Anderson’s account of Charlie Sheen’s hotel-room meltdown was her assertion that Sheen “started yelling racial slurs.”

Anderson (a/k/a Christina Walsh) is Irish-American, so what “slurs” was Sheen shouting? Mick?

Evidently, however, Sheen has a habit of shouting the n-word at women when he’s angry, as was the case when he left obscenity-filled voice-mails on the phone of his ex-wife Denise Richards:

In the first message, received on April 19, 2005 at 12.46pm, Charlie said: “You don’t answer the phone and you don’t have the f***ing courage or the wherewithal to like confront me or deal with me or just be f***ing honest.”
“I guess I’ve just got to stop being disappointed by that because that’s just who you are and what you do. And I guess once I accept that, I won’t be frustrated by your chicken s**t f***ing behavior. I’m just really f***ing mad and you owe me a phone call. If I did the same s**t to you, you’d be f***ing furious.”
In the second message, from 1pm the same day, Charlie said: “You continue to be deceitful and mischievous and sneaky, and you’re a f***ing liar. OK. You’re a f***ing liar. So, you know what it’s like, f**k you. OK, I hope you rot in f***ing hell. You’re a piece of s**t f***ing liar and I hope you f***ing rot in hell. So f**k you. I hope I never f***ing talk to you again you f***ing ****. F**k you. You’re a coward and a liar and a f***ing n****r alright, so f**k you.”

Here’s the uncensored audio of those calls:

So there is a certain element of credibility to the porn-star’s claim that Sheen “started yelling racial slurs” at her. Notice that Monday morning, after Capri Anderson’s Good Morning America interview, Denise Richards sent out these Tweets:


So she’s paying attention to Charlie’s latest embarrassment and — wisely, in my opinion — staying away from it. BTW, we still haven’t figured out what happened to Charlie’s $160,000 Patek Philippe 5970 watch . . .

PREVIOUSLY: