Sans cowboy boots and snuff, the latest GOP takeover is kinder, gentler. by Scott Bass
As GOP resurgences go, this one comes quick and unequivocal, barely an hour after the polls closed Tuesday night. By 8 o’clock Bob McDonnell is declared Virginia’s next governor and the party heads are in full Republican surge mode, a la 1993, complete with cameos from former governors George Allen -- who won the Executive Mansion a year before the Newt Gingrich-led Congressional takeover in 1994 -- and ultra-conservative bad boy Jim Gilmore.
But make no mistake, this is McDonnell’s party now. The ghosts from GOP’s past may have come to gloat on a night when Republicans swept all three statewide offices by a nearly 60-40 margin -- governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general -- but this is McDonnell’s victory, and he did it without cowboy-booting the competition.
“Creigh Deeds said no; Bob McDonnell said, ‘Yes we can,’” echoes Republican Delegate Bill Janis, kicking off the election night festivities at the Richmond Marriott. “Yes we can!”
The message isn’t so subtle. McDonnell and the Republicans managed to rebrand the GOP, moving the party away from its far-right social agenda and the anti-Obama catcalls of Fox News in a few short months. The new surge is all the talk Tuesday night -- the “warning shot,” crows U.S. Rep Eric Cantor -- but this isn’t the Allen-Gilmore lineage.
This new party was message-oriented and respectful, eschewing the screaming conservatives on the Hill. It was polite, in fact. A billboard for Powhatan Delegate Lee Ware, who looks alarmingly like a younger Newt, whispered: “Principled. Effective. Courteous.” McDonnell never personally attacked Obama and at times agreed with his policies (charter schools, for instance) and even congratulated his Nobel Prize.
Ripping a page or two from former governor and now U.S. Sen. Mark Warner, the Republicans rode to victory by appealing to the middle, pushing Reaganesque fiscal conservatism and keeping a safe distance from abortion and gay marriage.
McDonnell and Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling make sure to open their hearts to those “conservative Democrats” abandoned by their own party. In the ever-puzzling but no less impressive coerced endorsement, McDonnell has BET co-founder Sheila Johnson -- his “favorite Democrat” -- on the stage with him Tuesday night without any significant irony.
This isn’t Allen’s take-no-prisoners party of the mid-1990s, when he vowed to knock the Democrats’ “soft teeth down their whiny throats.”
Tuesday night, Allen is all smiles and gleaming, talking of the many similarities between the surges of 1993 and 2009. “I just think there are so many parallels and similarities,” Allen says, adding the caveat that the momentum shifted a bit quicker. He recalls attending Obama’s inauguration and all the euphoria, and then the sudden turn. “The political climate has really changed in the last five months.”
Something definitely turned in Virginia, but not in the way the national pundits ascribe. Surely the Republican victories were influenced by the anti-Obama movement, the tea parties, the Pelosi-bashers, but McDonnell’s campaign was about jobs and low taxes -- and it ushered him into the Executive Mansion.
“It can be a conservative party, but it can also be a pragmatic party,” Bob Holsworth, the longtime political analyst, says of the McDonnell credo.
Indeed. And it just might have kicked off a kinder, gentler Republican revolution this time. Gilmore and Allen were on the stage Tuesday night, but they are a long ways away from front and center.
“Bob McDonnell has led us to victory after eight dark years in the wilderness,” Cantor tells the gathered conservative party-mongers. “That Republican resurgence, that revolution, has begun right here in Virginia.”
I think they call that a "Gone with the Wind" ......
Monday, November 09, 2009 1:17:46 PM by picasso
Was that a bygone?
Sunday, November 08, 2009 12:22:15 PM by Fourth Estate Fan
And, speaking directly to your question about what is wrong with voicing you displeasure, I suggest that bitching for the sheer sake of bitching is similar to pissing into the wind messy and nonproductive. Perhaps, expressing displeasure with a critical and constructive criticism might help all parties.
Sunday, November 08, 2009 12:14:10 PM by Fourth Estate Fan
FanGuy, Thank you. I submit, in the spirit of honesty, that there are examples of comments you have made that certainly sound as if they are a personal attacks on Roop, Bass, Dovi et. al. I am sure you could point to examples of similar remarks in my comments as well. But, for the purposes of moving forward, I suggest that we let bygones be bygones and both cease and desist commentary that could be interpreted as an ad hominem attack.
That said, if you could have three wishes come true for life in the "804," what would they be? .
Thank you 4th for addressing my point. We have different views on the media. I think that today's media too often views itself as part of the story, which is troubling to me (e.g., Fox news reporting constantly about its dispute with Obama). I watch news for factual reporting, not editorializing. I am smart enough to make up my own mind.
And yes, I am very hard on the media, and particularly Style. But I don't get personal about any reporters. They have the bully pulpit - so what is wrong with me voicing my displeasure in the comments sections that they offer?
Saturday, November 07, 2009 9:24:04 AM by picasso
Does anybody want to get together later and split infinitives?
Friday, November 06, 2009 8:11:57 PM by Fourth Estate Fan
FanGuy, I grow weary of the snarky comments you make about Style (specifically) and the media (generally). Further, I find some of your remarks to other posters (and to me) to be meanness made manifest and bullying. I apologize for fighting your "fire" with "fire." I am better than that (and I hope you are as well), therefore I propose we call a truce. If we were to stop insulting one another, perhaps we might be able to have a reasonable and interesting discussion on a variety of topics.
What prompted me "to chime in" was your ill-informed remark: "People watch the World Series because it is history unfolding in front of their eyes. Reporting on the election is not history, it's reporting on history. "
I disagree. "Journalism," Washington Post publisher Philip Graham famously once said, "is the first draft of history." Historian Stanley Kutler, writing in the pre-internet era, once defined news writing as "history with a 5:00 p.m. deadline."
So, as has been asked before: If journalism is "instant" history, what is history itself, other than journalism delayed and interpreted?
My point is pretty clearly stated 4 posts from the bottom, and addresses Scott Burger's point. For some reason, Fourth decided to chime in, attack me, and argue something that is irrelevant to the thread. Then he apparently called his journalism buddies to chime in with their valuable insight. Thanks.
Friday, November 06, 2009 6:03:34 PM by Anonymous
You are a real piece of work, FanGuy. I have been following this thread trying to figure out what your point is, other than being argumentative and insulting. Do you have a point? Your comments remind me of the mind-games that middle school kids play when they can't stand it if someone pays attention to anyone but them. Does your mother know you are online?
Wow, you "journalists" are a classy bunch. Not too bright apparently, but man you sure are classy.
Friday, November 06, 2009 2:45:33 PM by J-School Major
You are so right, FanGuy! This thread is all about YOU and what an idiot you are. "Fourth" has made some excellent points and all you do is try to play stupid or attack anything YOU don't understand. If anyone should STFU, it is you, bub. Maybe "Fourth" uses some big words you just don't understand. You are so bor-ing.
What are you talking about? Step away from the keyboard and sort yourself out. That is not what this thread is about.
Friday, November 06, 2009 11:54:33 AM by Four Estate Fan
FanGuy,
Your only point is to argue with me and to blame the media for the myriad problems that exist. You are frustrated that I am not taking your ad hominem bait and allowing this argument to become a battle between you and me personally. I, frankly, prefer the talking heads who analyze sports because at least they are honest enough to know that they are talking about a game. The politicoes, on the other hand, ALL pursue agendas based on the ideology of those who happen to own their particular media outlet. Caveat emptor. The political talking heads are emptier (and more dangerous) than they may appear at first glance.
Blah blah blah blah blah. Get back to me when you understand the point we are discussing because you apparently have no clue. No one is arguing the point you are trying to make.
Thursday, November 05, 2009 10:36:36 PM by Fourth Estate Fan
Wrong, again, FanGuy. The price we pay for the freedoms we have in our country is that the talking heads have a right to their opinions and analysis, regardless of whether they are Jon Stewart or Glen Beck, the New York Times or the National Enquirer. Bitching about the so-called media manipulation means nothing unless you are willing to become part of the solution. But, great land that this is, even those who choose to whine and carry-on have a right to do so.
Fourth, you are so full of it you have no idea how irrelevant your comments actually are. Are you sure you are posting in response to the right article? Quit patting yourself on the back and try to contribute something to the discussion that is actually useful.
Thursday, November 05, 2009 9:49:49 PM by Fourth Estate Fan
FanGuy,
My apologies. Silly me, I thought that you were familiar with the use of metaphors and analogies. Allow me to spell this out for you slooowly. Very slowly.
Time present and time past Are both perhaps present in time future And time future contained in time past T.S. Eliot
It is simple. In order for our government to be of, by and for "the people," citizens must VOTE. And, we must hold those we elect accountable. In order to do that, we must be informed.
Fourth, what the hell are you talking about? Nothing you just said refutes anything I just said.
Referencing the Founding Fathers' thoughts on a "spectator sport" in this thread is particularly absurd, considering there was no tv or radio at the time.
Thursday, November 05, 2009 5:19:41 PM by Fourth Estate Fan
FanGuy,
You are so wrong. Again. Politics, as created by the Founding Fathers, was never supposed to be a "spectator sport." The colonists, most assuredly , understood this and even made a place at the table for "The Fourth Estate."
Today's world is replete with a combination of forces—political, legal, technological, demographic, and economic—all contributing to the dream of "E pluribus unum." To be sure, it can get a bit rowdy when those different forces collide.
The citizens of Virginia and this nation SHOWED that they can show up and vote when it is necessary. And, it was necessary to elect Obama just as it proved necessary to elect Bob McDonnell.
That's an absurd comparision. You can be very interested in an election and in politics and still not want to watch the lame-brain talking heads spin things on television for hours on end.
People watch the World Series because it is history unfolding in front of their eyes. Reporting on the election is not history, it's reporting on history. Watching McDonnell's acceptance speech might count, but the hours and hours of endless, and useless, "analysis" by the talking heads does not.
If you want to make a real comparision, you'd have to compare the tv politico talking head shows to the number of people who would sit around watching sports talking heads talk about the world series for hours after it is already over.
Thursday, November 05, 2009 2:26:59 PM by Heavy Sigh
Jeff E: I must respectfully disagree. HOW people spend their time IS indicative of their priorities. And, just as budgets can be seen as moral documents revealing the values of those who make the budget, what we choose to watch (or NOT watch) on television is equally revelatory.
Thursday, November 05, 2009 1:59:08 PM by Jeff E.
Well factor in Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and the local stations and I think you'd come up with a much higher number. I really don't know how accurate these ratings are anyway. Are we counting all the people who keep up with news via their computers and Blackberries too? I'm not arguing that we aren't as in touch with politics as we should be but comparing the ratings of one channels news coverage versus the world series is unfair.
Thursday, November 05, 2009 9:54:54 AM by Scott Burger
I am all for media reform, so I am not a Fox News fan. At the same time, I sort of agree with you, Anonymous, the back and forth gets boring...
Some perspective from UrbanSurvival.com:
Not to harp on "What's wrong with America" this morning, but the elections coverage story that showed Fox had just over 4-million viewers of election coverage has me wondering the obvious: 20-million for the Series: 4 million for elections...So are American's therefore five times more interested in baseball than politics?
This is why Washington doesn't take calls from the home district very seriously.
Thursday, November 05, 2009 8:49:15 AM by Anonymous
Soooooo tired of the Fox News comments. It's lazy reporting.