But of course, this wasn't really Obama's "home" district, as his home district is in Illinois, and people generally use that term to mean the place where the politician won; and not the place where they grew up. But still, as the AP points out, this was once a heavily Democratic district, and now the Republicans have a lot to crow about by having taken it.
As the article makes clear in two different places:
The seat had been held by a Democrat for nearly 20 years and is located where Obama was born and spent most of his childhood.It's obvious that this defeat is a special burn on us, which is the main point of the article.
Now Republicans can say they won a congressional seat in the former backyard of the president and in a state that gave Obama 72 percent of the vote two years ago.
How They Did It
And how did they do it? By sticking to hardcore conservative principals. The article quotes from GOP head Michael Steele, saying:
Charles' victory is evidence his conservative message of lowering the tax burden, job creation and government accountability knows no party lines. It is a message Americans want to hear from candidates across the country.And the AP's reporter actually took that further, writing as fact:
Djou, 39, enjoyed solid support from state and national Republicans and ran a disciplined campaign focused on taxes and government spending at a time when Hawaii's tourism-driven economy remains troubled, with the state facing a $1 billion deficit, large cuts to state programs and workers and an unemployment rate that has nearly doubled in the last three years.You see? Republicans won because they were disciplined, while Democrats were indecisive and bickered. And while the article quotes Democrats making excuses about how the Democrats actually won 58% of the vote, that only emphasizes how disunited they were. Their party could win more votes and still not pull out a victory. And the reporter quoted the typical loser bravado about how they'll be able to win during the regular election in November. Ah, Democrats. Always the spinners.
In contrast, Democrats bickered over whether Case or Hanabusa was the strongest candidate for their party, and the situation got so bad that Obama and national party leaders weren't able to endorse one contender.
The Liberal Media Strikes Again
Fortunately for us, the liberally-biased reporter hid the most important factor on this story, in order to prevent Republicans from exploiting this weakness again. Never stated directly in the story: Two Democrats were running because it was a special election and there was no primary to whittle away the other one. And that's just not something that will happen in November.
And whew, it's a good thing the AP failed to outright say that, or Republicans might try to use that to their advantage. Perhaps they'd cancel all future Dem primaries or something, I don't know. And so, while readers will take away the unhideable truth about how Republicans gave Obama a black eye by running a disciplined fiscal conservative who stuck to his core beliefs, which was enough to defeat TWO Democrats in a Democratic district; the AP was at least kind enough to hide the real reason for this defeat.
So thank you AP, for keeping our weakness a secret. Sure, some readers might understand why it was that two Democrats were competing against each other, but in case they didn't, there's no reason to let the cat out of the bag. Better to just tell everyone about how weak and indecisive Democrats are, without bothering to explain why that happened. You guys really earned your liberal credentials this time.