Whatever redeeming remarks President Bush’s State of the Union Address might have had, they were entirely erased by Governor Tim Kaine’s Democratic Response.
Adding insult to injury, Mick Staton lost handily to now Senator-elect Herring in a 2 to 1 romp.
Chad Dotson over at Commonwealth Conservative summarized the election with one word: “Ouch.“
Ouch is right. All along we’ve been arguing that if we ran a true Republican, we’d win. Moderate Republicans are being scapegoated for the loss, but is that so?
According to the Virginia Public Access Project (VPAP) Democrat Mark Herring received $96,750 from his party’s state, local, leadership, and campaign committees. If you include individuals listed as Democrats, that jumps to $100,200.
In contrast, Mick Staton received only $10,000 from the GOP. The GOP party establishment provided less than one-tenth the support to their candidate that the Democrats did to theirs.
This funding disparity has larger implications. As party moderates frequently speak about the need to run moderates to win, they set up those conditions by failing to support conservatives. This is particularly true in the Virginia State Senate.
…
It’s something I’ll have some thoughts on later. For the time being, I simply want to assert that Staton lost not because of his ideology, but because the party is both dysfunctional and failed to support the candidate.
Kaine hit it home. He connects very well, and even I couldn’t help but be drawn in by the speech he gave. Democrats and Republicans working together to get results — that’s the message that will win Congress for the Democrats in 2006.
What do conservatives do now? Too Conservative, often criticized for being a moderate, worked awful hard for Staton today.
Over at Commonwealth Watch, Poli Amateur is looking forward and asks the question which will it be, retain the majority or concede on principle:
Virginia Republicans, it’s decision time. Do the math. Population growth in the part of the Commonwealth where we are bleeding seats like there is no tomorrow. Our days in power are numbered if we do not change course.
Poli Amateur takes me to task on a post I made previously, with the following quote:
I would rather be a minority party firm on conservative principles of Reagan and Goldwater, than a majority party more attuned to the demands of liberals like Tim Kaine.
This myth of a Republican majority has enabled Tim Kaine to embarass our Republican President.
Perhaps it’s high time to realize the moderates were never with us to begin with?
Look, I’m sure there are a bunch of Republicans highly upset that the myth has been broken, but understand this — voters that vote Democrat are not Republican.
I’ve made this argument once before, but it stands to be heard again:
I’ve argued that 2004 was a realignment year on the order of 1960 and 1932. If the Democrats wise up (and I’m not sure what it would take for them to do that – a convention of sorts?) and take the necessary step to the right that will make them competitive again, that would certainly justify my belief.
Whether the “Deaniacs” and other liberals who aren’t willing to let go of the 1960s are willing to let this happen is another story altogether. Of course, all of this begs the question as to whether or not such a reformed, centrist Democratic Party would be more appealling to those moderate Republicans and neo-conservatives who have either defected from the Dems over the course of time, or have become to comfortable governing the government the Democrats built.
If the Dems take a step to the right, will the GOP be ready to sluff off the moderate, big-government, and arguably socialist wing that gives them their overwhelming majorities? Even if it means losing their majorities and becoming the minority party again?
We live in interesting times indeed.
I wrote that in October, folks.