Ten things to note from yesterday’s elections (and to be weary of for 2008)

1. Hatred of Bush and Republicans is sufficient for a campaign platform.

2. Republicans who act and vote and like Democrats will eventually be replaced by actual Democrats (see Lincoln Chafee and the northeast Republicans voted out of the House).

3. Democrats will ignore a candidate’s actual positions and history as long as he or she is willing to run as a Democrat (see Webb, Casey and the Southern conservatives elected to the House).

4. For blacks, party identification has become an indelible trait stronger than race or ethnicity and Democrats no longer need to pander to get their votes (see Cardin vs. Steele, Strickland vs. Blackwell and Rendell vs. Swann).

5. With the help of Democrats and the MSM, Hispanic voters are getting close to ignoring the word “illegal” when they hear or read about policies to combat illegal immigration.

6. There is no ascertainable disqualifying level of corruption for a New Jersey Democrat politician (see Toricelli, McGreevey and Menendez).

7. Republicans need to reconsider their resignation reflex (see Delay and Foley vs. Jefferson, Studds and, of course, Clinton).

8. Scandal issues work best when the MSM lends a helping hand (see the coverage of Foley and Allen in contrast to Jefferson and Webb).

9. To Democrats and, at least for now, a majority of voters, ending a war is preferable to winning a war (see Vietnam, and now, perhaps, the GWOT).

10. Blogs can have an outsized role in pushing and funding candidates, but the blog’s most incendiary comments can still be dismissed as not representative of the candidate (see DailyKos, firedoglake, HuffingtonPost).

UPDATE: A new number 11, related to number 8:

11. Dirty tricks, last minute outings and disclosures and negative campaigning are effective, but rather than the MSM helping hand referred to in number 8, Republicans using these tactics have to be prepared to deal with MSM criticism.

The Feingold Paradox

From the Opinion Journal, Sen. Feingold introduces us to his latest argument for cutting and running:

Al-Zarqawi's death . . . will not end the insurgency that has pushed Iraq into a violent downward spiral. . . . As long as large numbers of U.S. troops remain indefinitely in Iraq, that tragic death toll will continue to rise, because Iraq will remain a crucible for the recruitment and development of a wide range of terrorist networks determined to fight so-called American "occupiers." (emphasis added)

. . . .

A comprehensive strategy to fight terrorism must also address countries like Somalia. Failed states like Somalia are the breeding grounds for terrorism and instability (emphasis added).

Opinion Journal points out the weakness of the Feingold doctrine, but there is a neat paradox in Sen. Feingold's argument: If the U.S. abandons Iraq to the terrorists and Saddam loyalists in accordance with the Feingold doctrine, is it more or less likely that Iraq would become a "failed state"? Or is Sen. Feingold arguing the inconceivable, namely that if the U.S. cuts and runs, Iraq would become a thriving democracy? So, according to the Feingold paradox, U.S. presence and cooperation are "a crucible for the recruitment and development of a wide range of terrorist networks" and "failed states" (which is what Iraq would be if the U.S. followed the Feingold's cut-and-run doctrine) "are the breeding grounds for terrorism and instability." Got it: stay and cause terrorists recruitment and development or leave and cause terrorists breeding and instability. Only from the mind of a Democrat . . . .