Lessons From Tuesday's Vote?

Somedays the Wall Street Journal just makes our job too easy, and today's one of those.

VIRGINIA'S ELECTION LESSONS

First off, we couldn't agree more with the WSJ editors that "[p]erhaps [Virginia Republicans] should try to stand for something other than bashing immigrants."

But then, we disagree with the Journal's editors that Va.'s Repubs "have lost their way by embracing the tax and spending agendas of successive Democratic Governors." The GOP in Virginia has a couple of problems. The first is demographic--Northern Virginia's sprawling suburbs are simply becoming more ethnically diverse, with Democratic-leaning voters moving in.

Of course, many of those suburban voters are independent-minded moderates, not committed Democrats, but they're turned off by the Republican party's negativism--no to everything--and intolerance. In that sense, WSJ's editors are correct in that the party needs to "stand for" something positive.

The fact is that moderate Republicans in Northern Virginia are losing because they are handcuffed by their more extreme rural cousins. A message of fiscal restraint could easily sell in Virginia if it wasn't also coupled with a refusal to come up with real solutions to real problems, especially transportation, and what appears to be overt hostility to anyone who isn't a white, conservative Christian.

LESSONS FROM THE REST OF THE COUNTRY

The Journal also gave us this: two articles, literally side-by-side, on the editorial page well illustrating the old canard that "consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."

In the first, the Journal's editors proclaim that Oregon voters'--rejection of referendum to fund a state health care program with an increased tobacco tax is direct evidence that Democrats in Congress are out of step with voters in their proposal to expand a children's health care bill with an increase in the federal tobacco tax. After all, Oregon is a "blue" state, so even Democratic voters, the WSJ reasons, don't support this type of thing.

But then, right next door, the Journal has an op-ed proclaiming that the defeat in Utah of a conservative-sponsored referendum to devote state tax dollars to fund private school vouchers was just some kind of fluke--simply proving the difficulty of "winning an off-year referendum."

But wait a minute, isn't Utah about as true "red" a state as Oregon is true "blue." If consistent, the Journal would say that Utah's Republican legislators are obviously out of step with what their Republican constituents want.

Or maybe the Journal just takes the conservative side of all issues, damn consistency? Nah, that couldn't be it.

A better way to look at the Utah referendum's defeat is to look at the WSJ's lead editorial headline: Tax and Offend. We have a hard time seeing how Utah's GOP legislators can justify devoting public tax dollars to funding private school educations and still call themselves fiscal watchdogs. We think most people--ESPECIALLY CONSERVATIVES--believe that folks who want to go to private school should pay for it themselves. That why they call it private school, and that's probably why Utahans overwhelmingly rejected the program (62% against it). (And yes, we've heard all the blah, blah, blah rationalizations for vouchers, but there's simply no way at all to square those arguments with a philosophy of limited government and fiscal conservatism.)

So, while the WSJ may not be consistent, it appears voters are. Vive la democracy.