Peggy Noonan plays dumb about N.Y.-23
November 07, 2009 11:03 am ET by Eric Boehlert
And let's face it, nobody plays dumb like Peggy Noonan.
In her WSJ column this week, she sets aside nearly 1,300 words an analyze last week's election, which she robotically concludes were a nightmare for Democrats, and especially Obama because voters rose up against him in N.J. and VA., where new GOP governors were elected. And yes, while making that the central point of her column, Noonan completely ignored the N.J. and VA. exit polling which indicated most voters did not consider Obama when they cast their votes on Tuesday.
But that's par for the Noonan course.
More importantly though, was that out to those 1,300 words about Tuesday's elections, guess how many Noonan dedicated to the Congressional race in Upstate N.Y., which Democrats won in a shocker? Answer: 24 words.
But oh, were those 24 words were priceless [emphasis added]:
The congressional race in upstate New York was too messy, too local, and too full of jumbly facts to yield a theme that coheres.
The race--y'know the one where the red district went blue for the first time in nearly 150 years--was too confusing for Noonan to figure out. The federal race was of no interest to Noonan, who instead spent her column inferring all kinds of things about the president's political standing based local statewide races; races where the voters told pollsters that Obama was not a factor in their vote. Got it?
And oh yeah, N.Y.-23 was too local to be of any interest to Noonan.
Honestly, how does she even type that with a straight face, and how do her editors print it without a profound sense of embarrassment?
Note to Noonan: The whole reason N.Y.-23 took on national significance in the days running up to Tuesday, was because the race has been completely nationalized by conservatives, who poured in buckets of national money and tried to turn the race into a national referendum.
But when they lost, GOP cheerleaders like Noonan announced the race was too confusing to understand; to messy for her to figure out. Too local.
Like I said, nobody plays dumb like Peggy Noonan.
UPDATED: Perhaps this recent Politico headline will jog Noonan's memory about why the Upstate N.Y. election wasn't so "local":
NY-23 race first test of tea party power
Conservatives failed that test, of course. But Noonan prefers to play dumb.
UPDATED: Or maybe this will refresh Noonan's memory. It was from Steve Krakauer at Mediaite.com, pre-Election Day:
Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity really want Doug Hoffman to win that special congressional election in Upstate New York's 23rd district. It's not just because he's a 3rd party "Conservative" candidate in a race that saw the shunned, moderate Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava drop out and endorse the Democrat, Bill Owens.
It's because this race is a referendum on town halls, on tea partying, on the 9/12 Project.
That doesn't sound very "local," does it Peggy?
I understand wanting your side to win, and she could simply have reported on the governors races in New Jersey and Virginia. She would need to ignore Virginia's history of electing a governor of the opposite party to the White House, but it would at least have been marginally believable. She would have had to ignore the extremely weak candidate in New Jersey, but, again, barely plausible.
But after FOX, and almost every A- and B-list Republican not only got the moderate Republican candidate removed from the NY-23 race, but installed an out-of-district candidate more to their national liking, it became a national story. It also became a referendum, not on President Obama and the Washington government, but rather on who the Republican Party actually is. Voters in NY-23 then rejected the image of 'Republican' being forced on them from the top down. I guess trickle down politics doesn't work any better than trickle down economics. Big surprise.
Ms. Noonan? Retire. You're a hack, but you're also really bad at it. Let those who have the flair to at least spin an interesting yarn write fiction, and those who are able to report the news from this planet practice journalism. This is obviously not your particular metier.
These republicans/conservatives keep stroking their egos and posturing to cover up the fact that they have nothing to offer that will improve the lives of Americans. They are the real "government takeover" that they love to rage against, not health care reform or any of the other issues under consideration in Congress.
The vote on Saturday evening may have been that kind of a vote for some Democrats - as the vote counting progressed, there were quite a few votes that remained as 'present' for several minutes. After the votes got up to 218, the minimum required, there were several Democrat's votes that went to the Nay column. It could be that if it were necessary, those votes would have gone into the Aye column, but absent that need, those Congressmen felt free to vote Nay. Or it could be that every person who voted Nay would never have voted Aye.
If that second option is closer to reality than the first, then we needed the two new Democratic Congressmen elected that we got this past Tuesday.
And I want everyone to remember that several days ago, we were told that those two new Democrats weren't important to the Dem's numbers - they had plenty already. I know that RightON tried to make that fraudulent argument - that these two seats weren't important.
It's quite likely they were very important. It's pretty likely that those on the right could count too, and they knew how valuable those seats being held by the Democrats was, and that's likely one of the reasons they're trying to pretend that those seats weren't important, to distract us from this very issue!!!
I thought the message was clear, and the conservatives outlined it really well... Owens was a Dem, Scozzafava was a Dem in GOP clothes, and Hoffman was the true conservative (just look at his Beck and Palin endorsements). The conservatives made it messy, if you wish to call it that, and the campaign was far from local, with the conservatives nationalizing the election as the contest to watch, which will clearly show a rejection of President Obama...
I guess it is hard to admit that they were wrong...
----------------------------------------
The Midnight Review
Mum Is The Word
That's what happens to facts after one's third martini. No one recognizes them quite like the Lady Peggington Noonington.
~
-- Owens Breaks 4 Campaign Promises In First Hour in Congress --
-- The mixed-up mess that was the 23rd Congressional District Special Election was a close race between Democrat Bill Owens and Conservative Doug Hoffman. Many feel that it was unlikely Mr. Owens would have won those crucial few thousand votes if the voting public was aware of his intent with regard to the Health Care bill. The majority of residents in this district do not support the Health Reform bill as it is now written and many feel like they've become victims of a fraud perpetrated by their chosen candidate.
Breaking campaign promises is not unusual for politicians... it's a cliche. This is almost certainly a record though. Mr. Owens broke no less than 4 promises in his first 24 hours in office. --
Owens fledgling career in Washington will have a shelf life of about one year.
Michelle Malkin
Chuck Norris
Michael Barone
Jackie Gingrich Cushman
Oliver North
Diane Diamond
One wingnut after another.
We'll fix the mess your heroes made, Wesley. Without your help, obviously.
~
The talking points they fax out are getting weaker and weaker, aren't they?
I'm sure that makes for warm and fuzzy thoughts among the liberal wing of the democrat party as they cackle around the water cooler.
This delusion suits me just fine while waiting on next years mid-terms. Gallup polling shows a sharp decline in the public's perception of the leadership of Pres.Obama:
-- One telling fact is that Obama has lost ground with every group except those who self-identify as liberal Democrats. Moderate and conservative Dems, along with independents and Republicans, are registering complaints.
That corresponds with Tuesday's election results, where independents in New Jersey and Virginia backed Republicans by more than 2 to 1. The same group backed Obama last year. --
Yep, this delusion suits me just fine...bringing to mind that famous quote from Col.Custer..."Where did all these Indians come from?"
Well that's certainly one way to look at the situation...220 wise solons and 215 crackpots voting in the house of representatives.
It's rumored that Sitting Bull had a hearty chuckle when his scouts reported that Custer was approaching their village with a smile on his face and whistling "Garry Owen".
Count me in the group that hopes the democrat party continues to smile and whistle their merry tune.
I'am sorry i don't get your Garry Owen comment,I had no idea that Sitting Bull was a Republican let alone their hero, but let me say you cons are so out of touch and behind it actually looks to you like your ahead...you've been lapped several times. I like the many faces of color at your last rally...oops...press conference. Michelle Bachman,Sarah Palin,Dick Armey,Eric Cantor, Bobby Jindahl,Bonhner,and "Twinkle Toes" Delay all taking their marching orders from Glenn Beck and Rushbo yep I see a bright future for your party. It won't be long before the complexion of your party and the policies it represents allows you to openly claim "White Power" as your ralling cry,so you continue to whistle "Dixie" if you like. John Browns body may be lying in the grave but his truth goes marching on and like a tree thats planted by the water we shall not be moved.
Look, he praised his leadership and insight. How could he? Doesn't he know the deaths of American soldiers that Sitting Bull was directly responsible for? Shameful and unAmerican.
<end sarcasm>
I don't think republicans will get real national power again, because the southern bloc is fraying at the edges, and new voters get exposed to the outside world too easily. But if your side does win again, it will destroy this country. And you'll just shrug and say that they weren't following "real" conservative principles.
Help you figure out that the number of the district (NY-23) isn't what you should be looking at? That you should be looking at the counties that are covered by the district currently, and look to see when the vast majority of those counties were last represented by the Democratic Party?
Because you aren't swift enough to figure that out on your own?
I swear, people who come here and can't even educate themselves, and then expect us to accept their 'education' of us....
All you had to do was a simple search of NY-23 on Wikipedia, for example, and in the same place it told you that it was recently held by a Demcorat, it would have told you what counties it covered. Until about 40 years ago, NY-23 was a district that covered NYC and its environs. Then it moved to be a district near Albany. Now it's a district in the North Country, including most of the Adirondacks, the Tug Hill Plateau and a couple of counties along Lake Ontario, where they get lots of snow. The biggest city has about 27,000 residents - it's probably the most sparsely popuplated district east of the Mississippi.
A few bits of a couple of counties were represented by a Democrat a generation ago. About 60% of the current district was last represented by a Democrat back in the 1800's, much of that in the 1850's.
And then we see the same feigned shock when they discuss Virginia, like the fact that it voted for Obama (now, that was somewhat of a shock in VA) means that they should have voted for the Democratic candidate for Governor this go-round!
In their world, there is no black and white, remember, no nuance, no explanations allowed. Either you're for them or you're against them.
I think it's that kind of thinking that's led them to reject the reasonable conclusion here about why the votes went the way they did.
You libbies make it too easy.
The incumbent lost in New Jersey because of multiple reasons, but none of the reasons had to do with the number of votes cast. Likewise the Dem running in Virginia didn't lose because of the number of voters in that election. He lost because of other reasons.
The Dem who won in NY-23 won because the Conservative was a crappy candidate who didn't know about the district he was running in, didn't know the issues, and didn't want to approve any earmarks for Fort Drum, the most important thing in that Congressional district. The Dem didn't pretend anything, nor did he break a single campaign promise - we've already debunked that last talking point.
Even 'easy' things, you don't win on - who do you think you're fooling besides yourself?
Because 7 million is larger then 60,000. Look it up if you don't believe me.
In fact, as a service to those of you with comprehension skills, about 60% of 7 million voters voted conservative (4.2 mil) vs the little bitsy 60,000. Come Nov. 2010 you'll see how much more 4.2 Million is and how much difference it makes.
BTW: Dell, you told me to link to this page for your proof that you new NY23 rep didn't break his campaign promises. Please tell me where your "proof" is - not opinions.