AnnotatedOpinions.com

I will not tackle what I consider a failing of her analysis here. Instead, I will make the argument that, assuming these elections can tell us something, the message is more in favor of Democrats than Republicans, as many news outlets may report. At its core, arguing that yesterday was a positive message for Republicans is akin to the Marcus’ error: it amounts to counting up the number of wins without attention to the context.

There are at least three reasons why the GOP gubernatorial wins don’t say much about congressional elections:

First, the wins for the GOP in New Jersey and Virginia says little about how people are viewing President Obama. This is confirmed by exit polls in those two states where voters said that Obama was not a factor in their vote. See, for example, here.

Second, a governorship is a position farther removed from national politics than many other positions, especially congressional positions. That is, whether a particular state votes for a Republican or Democrat as governor, there is not necessarily a connection between that and the party majority of the state’s residents vote for in a presidential or congressional race. For example, residents of New England states regularly vote for Republican governors but rarely vote for Republican congressmen/women or senators. Governors are far from Washington, politically speaking, and have limited influence on what comes out of Washington.

Third, the two Democratic governors who lost their races yesterday were each running on his own, very long, records. Their loss can easily be seen as a result of their achievements or lack there off as governors.

Now if we consider the race in New York’s 23’rd congressional race, on the other hand, the above discussion suggests that if there is any message at all, it is one favoring Democrats.

But beyond the discussion above, there is another very important message that was sent by NY-23. The voters chose the Democrat over the conservative candidate when embodied all of what GOP leaders have been espousing. The voters did so after the GOP ran off its own candidate who the people actually favored.

In other words, the voters favored and chose a GOP candidate who was in favor of many of President Obama’s policies. Prominent conservatives such as Glen Beck, Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty ran off the GOP candidate, effectively replacing that candidate with one off their own stripes. These prominent conservatives argued for a more insular Republican party, demanded it, and got their way. The voters, on the other hand, would have none of it. As a result, a district that hasn’t elected a Democratic representative since 1978 (in some parts of the district, since 1850)* revolted, choosing a candidate it thought would best represent it in congress. The message from the district is that the individual who can best represent the district in congress is someone who favors many of President Obama’s policies.

* As a result of redistricting, different part of the district last voted for a republican at different times.

A year ago, New York State joined nine other Eastern states from Maryland to Maine in an innovative program to control greenhouse gases by charging power plants a fee to emit carbon dioxide. Nine of the 10 agreed to use the proceeds exclusively for renewable energy, advanced technologies and other programs to address the challenge of global warming. New York did not . . .   

Now Gov. David Paterson has announced that he plans to take what is left in the fund, about $90 million, and use it to help close the state’s yawning budget deficit. The governor is desperate for  money: programs large and small are being slashed — including health care and education — and it can be fairly argued that nothing should be off-limits. That said, we strongly hope that the other states hold the line. We also urge Mr. Paterson not to make this a habit. . .  

[AO: I beg to disagree with the New York Times on this matter. Indeed, I urge Mr. Paterson and other governors to continue to make prudent decisions. When faced with ensuring that funds are available to provide necessary healthcare or continue essential education of our children, if finds are available in another program that does not present similar urgency, governors must make the appropriate decision to fund the higher priority necessities. Of course, governors should not make a habit of this. Ideally, governors will take steps to increase funding to the raided programs when the state’s budget is one again healthy. However, in a midst of a recession or depression, when people are going without needed healthcare and education of our children is at risk, money should not be expended on lower priority projects.]

Tax increases are coming because they’re necessary [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]  

Afghan success depends on understanding the enemy [USA Today]  

When ‘us’ isn’t so many: A New York congressional race may be a defining moment for the GOP. [Washington Post]  

Medicare: Only real advantage is the one insurers get [Philadelphia Inquirer]  

ICE numbers: Accurate counts on illegal detainees needed [Houston Chronicle]  

America, we’ve seen worse [USA Today]  

Clean Water: Still Elusive: The 1972 Clean Water Act has fallen well short of its goals; the time has come to strengthen enforcement and the law. [New York Times]  

Raising the debt ceiling: The Senate faces the painful duty of once again raising the limit on the national debt. [Washington Post]  

Open up Blackwater’s closed hearing: A judge’s decision to bar media and the public from a case involving the security firm’s role in the deaths of 14 Iraqi civilians is extreme and unjustifiable. [LA Times]  

Progress on Drunken Driving: Mandating ignition-interlock devices for all drunken-driving offenders is smart national safety policy. [New York Times]  

Unity doomed apartheid. Next up: climate change [USA Today]  

China leaving US behind in green energy: In contrast to a fragmented approach in the United States, China is investing deeply in renewable energy and is poised to become an unchallenged leader. [Boston Globe]  

The cars of N.Y. and L.A.: Drivers in both cities share some unique characteristics — but there is a fork in the road. [LA Times]  

Robert Mugabe vs. Zimbabwe: If the flawed power-sharing deal in Zimbabwe cannot be fixed, then new elections, supervised by the international community, must be scheduled. [New York Times]  

Iran talks we should end: A tribunal founded in settling the 1979 hostage crisis has outlived its usefulness. [Washington Post]  

Pakistan fights back: The offensive in South Waziristan is the latest sign it’s finally taking the Taliban seriously [Washington Post]  

The war on ACORN: Conservatives are distorting and playing up the community-organizing group’s so-called scandals, part of a broader effort to discredit progressive organizations and President Obama. [LA Times]  

A mother’s journey for reform: A battle begun for a chronically ill daughter to ensure insurance coverage for college students is won, but much more needs to be done for true health care reform. [Boston Globe]  

THE ARREST of suspected terrorist Najibullah Zazi last month highlighted a basic problem in counterterrorism: Investigators need to move in fast if evidence suggests an attack may be imminent, but doing so may make it impossible to uncover all tentacles of a potentially far-reaching plot. Conciliatory public statements aside, FBI officials have made it clear they are unhappy with the New York Police Department, whose pursuit of Zazi inadvertently tipped him off. Once he knew police were asking questions about him, the FBI had to arrest him before it could work out the full extent of his alleged plot. . .  

If FBI agents are frustrated that some other potential terrorists and some explosive materials have not yet been located, that is understandable. But the Police Department was only doing its job; the benefits of foiling an attack outweigh the damage from preempting a more detailed FBI investigation. No bomb exploded, nobody was killed, the reputed originator of the plot was captured, and . . .  

[AO: Editors, you make the wrong comparison. The proper comparison is whether arresting Zazi now, rather than later, made us safer (not if it made us safe). In that regard, the proper comparison is between the benefits of foiling one attack and the damage from preempting an investigation that might foil a more significant attack.  

Imagine that in 2000/2001 the FBI was investigating the terrorist that attacked New York City on 9/11. Now imagine that the New York Police Department had arrested one of the terrorists, tipping off the rest of them so that they changed their plans and prevented the FBI from foiling the attack. I doubt the Globe would argue that the benefits of capturing the one terrorist sooner rather than later outweigh the benefits of preventing 9/11. ]

Bicoastal constitutional conundrum: California has what New York wants; New York is trying to throw out what California craves. Is it a case of the grass is greener, or are there lessons to be learned here? [LA Times]

Defer pay and disclose salaries at bailed-out Wall Street firms: If another wealth-destroying financial bubble is to be avoided, the system that rewards short-term windfalls at the expense of long-term financial soundness must be changed. [Boston Globe]

By dodging tough choices, Congress invites failure: Opportunism, cowardice threaten historic reform opportunity. [USA Today]

Cover Health Care With a Tax: Deficits will grow unless taxes increase. [Washington Post]

Strike the ban on violent images: A 1999 federal law that bans the creation, sale, and ownership of depictions of violence against animals is overly broad in that it can be used to criminalize all portrayals of illegal animal cruelty — even those that help expose its horrors. [Boston Globe]

Truth in Advertising, Offline or Online: The F.T.C. must continue to closely monitor online advertising and endorsements, but regulators should focus enforcement on the advertising companies rather than individuals. [New York Times]

A Losing Slogan: “I’m With the Taliban Against America” is not likely to do much for Republicans. [Washington Post]

Nobel dust-up not aimed at making peace [Chicago Tribune]

Obama Peace Prize not without merit [USA Today]

Preventing Age Discrimination: Congress must undo the damage done to age discrimination law by a recent Supreme Court ruling, and put the standards for proving such cases back on a level with other bias cases. [New York Times]

U.N. shifts strategy for nuclear arms control: The emphasis used to be on containing the information needed to build a bomb. Now the focus will be on restricting the materials necessary to make a weapon. [LA Times]

Isn’t Good Sense Part of the Curriculum? Over the last 10 years or so, legitimate concern for the safety of children in school has too often led to poorly thought out, rigidly implemented policies that do more harm than good. [New York Times]

Turkey and Armenia: reconciling history – The two countries must get beyond the 1915-1918 genocide because it’s in both of their interests. [LA Times]

Saving the Last Lions: Big cats are in trouble everywhere, and the biggest threat is our own complacency. [Washington Post] 

A violent three-time loser convicted in the cold-blooded murder of a disabled Long Island man is up for parole after only five years in prison.

Applicants don’t have to be terminal, only disabled enough that a state doctor considers them no threat. . . .

Releasing a murderer because he is sick defeats the purpose of a life sentence. Felder must stay in the can. . .

[AO: So, under a new law in New York, prisoners who are certified as sufficiently disabled to be incapable of harming society, and therefore considered no threat to society, are eligible for early release. Apparently, this program will save taxpayers millions.  

The New York Daily News is no killer coddler. They want people sentenced to life in prison to stay in prison . . . for life. However, their argument skips a step. See, the editors should first explore why criminals are imprison before demanding that those sent to prison for life should remain there for life.

Three major theories for incarceration are deterrence (personal and general), rehabilitation and retribution (i.e. punishment). It is generally accepted that prisons do little to rehabilitate prisoners. Also, the difference between personal and general deterrence is that personal deterrence requires incapacitating the criminal so she cannot commit another crime whereas general deterrence sends a message to other to not commit crimes or they’ll be imprisoned.

 An argument that a life sentence must be served whether or not an individual is a threat is an argument that the retributive theory for incarceration is the primary, and perhaps only, reason for punishment. But this is not so because if you accept that the purpose of punishment is, for example, personal deterrence. Then, there is no need to deter an individual who cannot continue to commit crimes.]