Elder's article is an attempt to find meaning behind the recent elections that had just taken place, attempting to indicate the mood of the electorate as dissatisfied with the current administration's policies, attacking media for propagating anti-incumbency stories, but Elder seems to take a hard-right focus with his article, interjecting accounts of Democrats into his article to make it appear as if this dissatisfaction with candidates is across the board. Take for instance Elder's failure to mention ousted senator Arlen Specter.
Terribly skewed, Elder made absolutely no mention of Arlen Specter, a conservative democrat who spent nearly three decades as a Republican, who just lost in the primary election to Rep. Joe Sestak - a more liberal candidate.
Despite conveniently forgetting about Specter, Elder was sure to mention Democratic Senator Blanche Lincloln and the fact that she must now go through a June runoff against Lt. Gov. Bill Halter, and Elder was sure to mention the criticisms Halter had of Lincoln, but he failed to mention that Halter is no conservative, supporting health care, financial, environmental reform, and so on.
Elder wrote the following:
No. What voters said was: "It's not the incumbents, stupid. It's how they voted. It's what they stand for." No incumbent who voted against the Bush/Obama bank bailouts, the "stimulus" package and Obama-Care lost his or her job.If that was the case, then we wouldn't have seen liberals make some ground on established Washington candidates. America is not one giant Tea Party as Elder would like his readers to believe, and conservatives are willing to ignore the facts to live in their delusional world.