Hello all. I apologize for my brief absence (although I’m quite confident nobody noticed). Well, let the infighting begin. National and state Republicans now resemble the various Dem caucuses in ’02 and ’04, arguing over how best to sell themselves to voters. This year Democrats finally found a winning formula -talk like Republicans. Look at the Democrats who won this year, from sea to shining sea. Take Senator-elect Casey. He didn’t say much, but when he spoke, he sounded like a teed-off Republican. He argued for balanced budgets and drew a line against an immediate pull-out from Iraq. He says he’s pro-life and pledged to vote that way. Several incoming Dem freshmen are cultural conservatives (and quite a few signed Grover Norquist’s pledge against tax increases). In short, either much of the party underwent an ideological renaissance or we can chalk up this win, at least in part, to shrewd marketing. That said, it was Republicans, both local and national, who dropped the ball in the end zone. It was as if they were attempting to hand the Speaker’s gavel to Pelosi, like it was a hot potato. On everything, from spending to Iraq to manipulating the base with going-nowhere votes on gay marriage, the “leadership” in Washington did everything to strip themselves of power. For much of Bush’s term, congressional Republicans were enjoying an extended cocktail party, spending and spending, thinking the forsaken base was placated by their token support for the much-ballyhooed “wedge” issues. Those House Republicans brave enough to speak out were shut out. The leadership and those that went along just to get along got their pork, while everyone else could do nothing but watch the oncoming electoral train. Pelosi and Co., wisely, straying from ideological boundaries, recruited moderate-to-conservative Dems to challenge Republicans on their home turf, namely suburban and rural districts. Many of the Dems who emerged victorious on Election Night were either fiscal or social conservatives (or in some cases, both). Which brings me (finally) to my “purple Pennsylvania” argument. It seems like Pennsylvanians will elect a Republican who is fiscally conservative or a Dem who is culturally conservative, but not both (or vice versa – a fiscally conservative Dem or socially conservative Repubican, although I’ve never seen a socially conservative, fiscally liberal Republican – at least not in Pennsylvania. I disgress though…). Put another way, this state won’t vote straight-up conservative or liberal. Rendell, while arguably a lib, has done just enough to proudly don his “fiscal conservative” badge (cutting some spending, turnpike leasing, etc.) – if we ignore his tax hikes ( by the way, thank you John Perzel and Bob Jubelirer for breathing life into that one). Casey will now have to carry over his ideologically-neutral talking points into actual votes. Specter is adored in some quarters around Philly for “standing up” to conservatives in his party. Governor Ridge compiled a good fiscal record while staying out of cultural clashes during his tenure. Given a different year with a different political climate, Senator Santorum may not have been the anomaly he apparently was in Pennsylvania. All in all, Pennsylvania doesn’t elect bomb-throwers. We seem to be in the business of putting deal-makers into power. Is this a good or bad tendency? Perspectives?

Personally I think its a good thing. At a time when division is the name of the game, PA is willing to look for unifying features in candidates. It also says to me that wedge issues are worthless in politics if you don’t stand for something first.