Okay, so I want to give props to the NRCC for admitting they have a problem:
"Clearly, we have got problems that are deep and serious in terms of how we are going to do in the fall elections," [Tom] Cole said.
That's progress. But then we hit the snag, as Cole further explains what those "problems" are:
"Having said that... we haven't lost as a party because of the ideological agenda on the other side. The obvious challenge we face is we had somebody running as a Republican, pro-life, pro-gun, who wants to cut taxes, wants to control spending. That's not particularly in step with where the Democratic majority is. So, that is going to create some opportunities for us. I think those issues clarify and reinforce [our agenda]."
First of all, does Cole really think that wanting to "control spending" is a Republican trait? If so, how come Bill Clinton balanced the budget while Mr. 27% and his Republican Congress has given us record deficits?
Nope, balancing the budget is definitely not a Republican trait. It's a Democratic one.
Second of all, guns are no longer a Republican issue. The NRA won. Democrats have given up on guns and have moved on. I know Republicans don't want to acknowledge that victory because it strips them of a once-useful wedge, but really, when you have Clinton and Obama fighting over who is more pro-gun, you know we've moved on.
So what's left? "Cut taxes"? Sure, everyone wants to cut taxes. The question is who gets those cuts and who shoulders the heavier tax burden. Republicans think oil companies need tax breaks, Democrats think lower and middle class families deserve them.
So that leaves abortion. And yes, on that issue, the two victorious Democrats in Louisiana (Don Cayazoux) and Mississippi (Travis Childers) actually buck their party. I'll add another one that Cole ignored -- immigration. On the border issue, these guys are downright regressive.
But that doesn't make them Republicans. Because if it does, then these positions shared by Cayazoux and Childers are now Republican positions:
This was the same lame spin that Republicans used to try and rationalize Jim Webb's victory in Virginia in 2006, before quickly dropping that approach as Webb's economic populism took center stage. Cazayoux and Childers appear to be economix populists in the Jim Webb mold.
What infuriates Republicans to no end is that these two Democrats effectively nullified GOP efforts to run on their pet social issues. Decades of winning elections on the abortion issue hasn't made abortion illegal in the country, nor has decades of anti-gay hysteria stopped the growing spread of tolerance, fairness, and equality. Heck, I doubt Republicans want to win those issues, given how quickly they're losing guns as a wedge issue now that they've won that battle.
With those social issues off the table, what's left? The kind of stuff that truly can make a material impact on people's lives -- health care, education, jobs, social security, and Iraq.
And no matter how much Republicans try to counter with the usual boogeymen (which now includes Obama, Wright, Pelosi and Kerry), it's not working. Democrats have clear advantages on bread and butter issues as well as the war in Iraq, even in the reddest of districts.
That's why Cazayoux ad Childers won. Not because they ran as Republicans, but because they ran on Democratic issues after taking the usual Republican wedge issues off the table.