“… just because we’ve been … dealt a certain hand … it doesn’t mean that we can’t choose to rise above — to conquer the boundaries of a destiny that none of us wanted. To try and retain whatever essential humanity we can.”
– Vampire Edward Cullen in Stephenie Meyer’s “Twilight.”

Twilight presents an interesting literary dilemma. What category do we place Stephenie Meyer’s successful novels of love between vampire Edward and klutzy, attractive mortal, Bella Swan, who spends most of the four-novel series pining to become undead?

For those unfamiliar with the series — “Twilight,” “New Moon,” “Eclipse” and “Breaking Dawn” — it involves high-schooler Bella Swan, who moves to rainy, overcast Forks, Wash., to live with her dad, Charlie, the local police chief. She becomes drawn to the hyper-beautiful Cullen clan, led by youngish doctor Carlisle. Bella develops a bond with Carlisle’s “son,” Edward, who is hesitant to act on but unable to resist their clear romantic attraction. Bella learns the clan — Edward, Carlisle, wife Emse, and couples Emmett Cullen and Rosalie Hale, and Alice Cullen and Jasper Hale — are vampires. The clan has — through self-control — shed most bloodthirsty tendencies and are “vegetarians,” meaning they consume animal blood.

Most of the series — in a nutshell — involves Edward, the Cullens and other allies saving “damsel in distress” Bella from various vampire threats, including a sinister, “Deatheaterlike, for you Harry Potter fans,” clan of elite, watchdog vampires called The Volturi. Later in the series, Jacob, a younger friend of Bella’s, is revealed as part of a clan of wolf-like shape-shifters. Bitter enemies, the shape-shifters and vampires reach an uneasy truce with a shared goal of protecting Bella.

In Breaking Dawn, the final and best novel of the series, Bella becomes a vampire and unites with the Cullens, the shape-shifters, and other vampires to repel an attack from the Volturi, who want to destroy Bella and her family for a reason disclosed later in this essay.

A HOT PARANORMAL ROMANCE

So, back to the question: What genre is Meyer’s Twilight series? It’s a paranormal romance for teens and those ubiquitious Twilight moms who seek a mostly chaste romantic thrill in middle age. Meyer, a devout Mormon who tags the Book of Mormon as a favorite, is a splendid writer who can craft a page-turner, but take away the horror elements and Edward is basically a good-hearted Fabio with fangs. Bella is the wench on the paperback cover in the supermarket without the heaving bosoms. Despite its PG-rated writing, Twilight is a hot tale between the lines, with lust and passion to the extreme. It’s amazing how chaste Meyer makes it all seem. She protectively guides avid 11-year-olds, such as my own daughter, demurely through a bout of very rough sex between newlyweds Edward and Bella in Breaking Dawn. (The film adaptation of Twilight loses some of the characters’ nuances but retains the feminine fantasy that drives the series’ success.)

A consistency in the paranormal romance genre — teenage zombie love stories are another current, hot genre — is a make-it-up-as-you-go-along attitude to the horror elements. Twilight can’t honestly be called a horror tale — there’s no consistency to traditional vampire lore. The biggest plot hole? There is no human check on a Meyer-created vampire’s thirst or savagery. No cross can stop Meyer’s vampires. They glitter — rather than wither — in the sunlight. No human-propelled stake can pierce a vampire’s heart. Reading while the evil Volturi vampires casually snack on unwary tourists, a reader must wonder, why don’t these Twilight vampires take over the earth and keep the humans as livestock? There’s nothing to stop this sinister option — one that Dracula, Lestat, or Carmilla never had.

A CHRISTIAN MORALITY TALE

But then there’s a paradox: Twilight is also a morality tale. Although Meyer favors no religion in her books, analogies to Christian teachings — many favored in Latter-day Saint lore — are everywhere. (In fact, there is a LDS modern-day vampire tale, Eugene Woodbury’s “Angel Falling Softly,” published by Zarahemla. The two novels have similar themes, and will be compared later in this essay.)

The vegetarian vampires, the Cullens, have chosen to be in the vampire world but not of the vampire world. The term “in the world but not of the world” is familiar to most active Mormons. We’ve heard it since we were Sunbeams. The Cullens acknowledge their savage vampire world but make a conscious decision to avoid what they regard as a sin, attacking and eating humans. Animals, however, are on the earth to feed them. Free agency is exercised. And it’s a difficult choice. The smell of human blood creates a desire in Meyer’s vampires akin to torture if not satiated. But the Cullens spurn it. Family patriarch Carlisle regards it as less a choice than a matter of self-control. In fact, the gentle Carlisle has become a doctor, deliberately exposing himself to human blood to heal humans.

The Cullens, despite differences of opinion over whether they can be saved, clearly have moral values. They have love for humans. Wrong behavior exists. To some, God looks over all creatures, even “monsters.”

ATONEMENT AND ETERNAL LIFE

In Breaking Dawn, Bella’s transformation must be considered an analogy to the Atonement. She endures agony so horrific that it almost — but not quite — reaches parody. The suffering is required to bear her and Edward’s half-human, half-vampire daughter, Renesmee. The child is only the second recorded offspring of a male vampire, female human mating. To deliver Renesmee, Bella must die and suffer immense torments. But then she awakes, with a perfect, immortal body.

Bella’s body transformation after she becomes a vampire is akin to how many Latter-day Saints regard exaltation. Here’s how Bella describes her change on pages 482-483 in Breaking Dawn:

“I was never going to get tired, and neither was he. We didn’t have to catch our breath or rest or eat or even use the bathroom; we had no more mundane human needs. He had the most beautiful, perfect body in the world and I had him all to myself, and it didn’t feel like I was ever going to find a point where I would think, ‘Now I’ve had enough for one day.’ I was always going to want more. And the day was never going to end. So, in such a situation, how did we ever stop?

“It didn’t bother me at all that I had no answer.”

Admit it, Meyer just defined “eternal life” more clearly than the average ward Gospel doctrine class can.

ANGEL FALLING SOFTLY V. TWILIGHT

As mentioned, there is a Latter-day Saint vampire novel, Woodbury’s “Angel Falling Softly.” It’s a sexier tale, with vampiress Milada Daranyi prowling both the wards of Sandy and the night life of Salt Lake City. The pale, uber-sexy teen-like Milada is a corporate big-shot prepping to buy a Utah medical research firm. Milada rents a Sandy home with a cool, shaded basement. Naturally, the ward members arrive.

Enter bishop’s wife Rachel Forsythe. Milada, who toys with most of the ward members, is drawn to a close, even passionate relationship with Rachel. Rachel’s young daughter, Jennifer, is dying. As Rachel begins to understand what Milada is, she concocts a desperate, dark plan to keep her daughter alive. At no time does she seriously entertain or consult priesthood authority. Instead, she trusts her mortal instincts.

Angel Falling Softly has caused some controversy. Fantasy author and conservative LDS columnist Orson Scott Card has scorned the novel. Some LDS bloggers share Card’s disdain. What fuels the criticism is probably the R-rated sex scenes, including lesbianism, and a resolution that tests the Gospel-comfort homily that “families are forever.”

But that test is a strength of Woodbury’s tale. As LDS blogger Moriah Jovan writes in her online review, “It’s a character study of the things we, as Latter-day Saints, might do when pushed into a corner with no apparent way out. It also asks if we have faith in what we say we believe.”

Twilight and Angel Falling Softly are distinct tales. Angel Falling Softly is clearly for adults, Twilight for youngsters, teens and moms. Angel Falling Softly is a regional novel, read by at best thousands. Twilight is an epic, read by millions. Angel Falling Softly is overtly religious, with clear LDS doctrines. Twilight’s religious lessons are allegorical.

In Angel Falling Softly, Rakosi, Milada’s late creator, created vampires to satisfy his thirst, greed and loneliness. Twilight’s patriarch Carlisle creates vampires to save a dying individual. Angel Falling Softly probes human society, with Milada’s curiosity directed at her human, LDS neighbors. Although Angel Falling Softly is written by a male, it’s most interested in females. Other vampires are limited in character, and in the background. In contrast, Twilight’s Bella is interested in her vampire friends, and later shape-shifters. Twilight’s female writer is mostly interested in male “monsters.” And the humans in Twilight, including Bella’s parents, stay in the background for most of the series.

Finally, the sun’s impact on a vampire differs in both novels. In Twilight, the vampires glitter and dazzle in the sun. In Angel Falling Softly, their skins burns, sheds and eventually regenerates.

PARALLELS BETWEEN THE NOVELS

One parallel to the novels is the decency of the main vampires. The Cullens have clear moral values that extend to humans. Early in Angel Falling Softly, Milada risks her vampire cover to save a young boy’s life. Also, Milada’s sister Kamilla — like Carlisle — is a doctor. Although Kamilla has a small role in Woodbury’s novel, both she and Twilight’s Carlisle contrast Edward and Milada, who at points in both novels are convinced they are without souls and beyond redemption. Nevertheless, both Edward and Milada establish close, intimate relationships with humans who believe otherwise. And both Edward and Milada choose to preserve human life — a clear contrast to the roles occupied by past literary vampires.

Accumulated wealth through a clan’s shared sacrifice is also a theme in Angel Falling Softly and Twilight. Milada’s clan, that includes her sister and others, have through time accumulated massive wealth. So have the Cullens. Their virtue is rewarded materially. This is important when contrasted to the novels’ nomadic vampires.

In Angel Falling Softly, Rakosi, Kamilla and  Milada’s uncouth creator, is long dead, having willingly expired in poverty. The nomads in Twilight are poor, thirsty wanderers, picking off unwary humans savagely.

REDEMPTION QUESTION

Questions of redemption dominate the climax of both tales. In Angel Falling Softly, young Jennifer is clearly a vampire. Rachel’s choice will lead, it seems, to her losing her daughter. Milada’s decision to help her is as much for having another eternal companion as it is for pity. She’s lonely.  In fact, in a perceptive passage, Milada sensibly asks Rachel why she worries about Jennifer’s death if she knows they will be together after death. In Twilight, Renesmee’s birth in Breaking Dawn underscores what many characters wonder: If a monster can create life, isn’t there a creator for the monsters?

Both Angel Falling Softly and the Twilight series do not have secure happy endings. A sequel to Angel Falling Softly would be intriguing. One wonders how Rachel Forsythe’s choice plays out.

And in Twilight, the Cullens, shape-shifters and their allies survive a tense showdown with the evil Volturi elites, but there’s no guarantee of eternal safety. The Volturi represent tradition — and control. They try to destroy the Cullens because they fear Renesmee’s new life in their world. They see paranormal children as new minds they cannot control, and therefore must destroy.

In these new vampire tales of romance, love, despair, hope, eternal life and exaltation, life has been preserved, but evil, and uncertainty, still exist.

This is a longer version of an edited column that was published in the Standard-Examiner print edition on Nov. 15.  This version, along with an accompanying cartoon from the Standard-Examiner’s Calvin Grondahl, was published in today’s edition of Currents, The Standard’s digital-only publication on politics and culture. To subscribe to Currents, call (801) 625-4400.

Sarah Palin’s book “Going Rogue” arrived this week and not surprisingly, most of the mainstream media greeted it with forced snark. The Associated Press assigned 11 reporters to “fact-check” the book. They came up with a few alleged “inconsistencies.” If the AP wants those reporters to really work, there’s President Obama’s previous memoirs and anything Al Gore has written on global warming.

Also, the soft, aging white intellectual male progressives who run the once-thriving Newsweek used a cover picture of Palin in tight shorts that had run in “Runners World” magazine. Why that photo — appropriate for Runners World, sexist for Newsweek — and not one of Palin on the campaign or with her family? The middle-aged liberal men at Newsweek despise Palin. They don’t quite understand why attractive, conservative, smart women upset them, but to deal with it they have to pick a photo that portrays Palin as the Betty Page-type bimbo they want readers to see  her as.

But the worst case of Palin hatred is at Current, Al Gore’s pod news network. In a satire cartoon, Palin was referred to as “Gun-ho” and a “TWILF,” which is an extremely vulgar term which reflects deep hatred for women. If Fox News did this to any liberal woman, imagine the news coverage. Of course, there’s nary a media ripple on the Current piece. Story

According to a just-released CNN poll, Americans are giving a big thumbs-down to the Obama administration’s decision to try the Sept. 11 terrorist mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a civilian court. Sixty four percent of us want KSM tried in a military court; only 34 percent agree with President Obama that KSM should be tried in a civilian court in New York City. Read

Sixty percent of us believe KSM should be tried in the United States; 37 percent say the trial should be outside the U.S.

The CNN report reads in part: “The decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in front of a civilian court is universally unpopular – even a majority of Democrats and liberals say that he should be tried by military authorities,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Despite that, most Americans say that he will get a fair trial in the U.S.”

Almost eight in 10 Americans support the death penalty if KSM is found guilty, including a healthy percentage of those who don’t usually favor the death penalty.

A couple of years ago my oldest daughter’s accelerated fifth-grade class viewed a film version of the well-regarded novel, “The Devil’s Arithmetic,” which involves a contemporary girl being thrust back in time into the horror of the Holocaust. I was thrilled she had a teacher motivated enough to teach her and others about the Holocaust. Unfortunately, some ignorant parents of other students in the class protested and initiated a crusade against the teacher, who was more or less suspended for several days. The intolerant parents were enabled by milquetoast district administrators who mostly took their embarrassing side. What’s most interesting is that a key argument against the teacher was that she had shown an “R” rated movie. She hadn’t, of course. “The Devil’s Arithmetic” is a TV movie. When I informed a district administrator that the film was not R-rated, he seemed very surprised. It was clear the non-existent “R” rating was a big deal.

OK, had an R-rated film been shown to fifth-graders, that would have been a big deal. The irony, though, is among much of the Mormon culture, an R-rated film about the Holocaust would not be tolerated for any ages — are we thinking “Schindler’s List” here? What about the crucifixion? “The Passion of the Christ” is a powerful, well-acted, deeply moving film. Trust me, it’s a much better, more spiritual, more faith-promoting film than the good-hearted “The Testaments.” But I know of an LDS ecclesiastical leader who told his congregation to not see the movie because it was R-rated. I have tried to convince friends who are, like myself, faithful members of the LDS church to see “The Passion of the Christ.” Some have looked at me like I’m the devil trying to tempt Christ to break his fast.

There are many R-rating spurners who are sincere, and avoid all films that cross a moral and personal line that they have set for themselves. I respect that. However, just about every week there are released into theaters PG or PG-13 rated comedy or light drama films with characters and events that are specifically sexual in nature and cast fornication or adultery in a positive light. Many of these films — “The Devil Wears Prada,” “Broadcast News,” “Mamma Mia” — are well-acted, well-produced films. I certainly won’t condemn anyone who enjoys spending two hours escaping real-life watching the films. Those three films, in fact, are among my favorites. My point is that 99 percent of my LDS friends who object to “The Passion of the Christ” don’t object to the PG-13 film at the cineplex; in fact, most have probably watched it.

Look, life is R-rated, and while I admit there’s little of R-rated life I’d want to see on the screen there are subjects, historical, religious or personal, that need an R rating to be effectively told. I know they covered deep subjects well in tame films generations ago, but we were a tamer society then. We laud old films such as “The Good Earth” and “Elmer Gantry” as classics but don’t realize until we read the novels that all the R-rated parts were taken out. A high priest in a former ward once scoffed at my respect for “The Godfather” films. “Edward G. Robinson did it better than Al Pacino, and you can take the family to see the film,” was what he more or less said. Well, I’m a big admirer of Robinson’s sneer, but “The Godfather” is a superb parable of capitalism run amok. It may be the greatest epic tale told on the screen. I’m glad I was able to introduce the trilogy to my wife, who loved the films.

In the past 20-plus years, a myth has grown within the LDS church that members are not supposed to watch any R-rated movies. It’s nonsense. It stems from a speech given by the late prophet Ezra Taft Benson, who advised LDS teenagers to avoid R-rated films. Writer Orson Scott Card, while defending “The Passion of the Christ” in a column, recounted what President Benson actually said: “We counsel you, young men, not to pollute your minds with such degrading matter, for the mind through which this filth passes is never the same afterwards. Don’t see R-rated movies or vulgar videos or participate in any entertainment that is immoral, suggestive, or pornographic. Don’t listen to music that is degrading.” (Ensign, May 1986, p 43)

That makes perfect sense for the youth of the LDS church. They should avoid films such as “Porky’s.” And most R-rated films are not meant for children. But, as Card points out, there is nothing about “The Passion of the Christ” that fits what Benson was warning youth about. Clearly, “immoral, suggestive, or pornographic” entertainment is what we are warned against, not R-rated films.

I don’t expect the myth of R-rated films to ever really go away. I know a family member who promised Heavenly Father a long time ago that she would stop watching R-rated movies. I’m sure He appreciates the gesture, although He’s probably a fan of “Braveheart.”

This column, along with an accompanying cartoon from the Standard’s Cal Grondahl, was published in Currents, The Standard-Examiner’s digital-only section on politics and culture. To access Currents, call (801) 625-4400.

A new Pew poll shows voters are dissatisfied with incumbents at a near-record level. Only 52 percent votersnow  support their incumbent. In 1994, only 49 percent of voters supported their House incumbent. Majority party Democrats lost 52 seats. In 2006, according to Pew, only 50 percent supported their incumbent and majority party Republicans lost 31 seats. Here

Democrats are so deep into their now unpopular health care reform plans that they likely have to push something through, although by December it’s likely only the party’s base will be cheering it; and they might not cheer at anything if the president increases troop levels in Afghanistan. Frankly, 2010 doesn’t loom much better, with an unpopular energy bill, even more unpopular immigration reform and a “finance reform” bill that enables Wall Street to continue its bad behavior topping potential legislative initiatives.

On the bright side, President Obama’s popularity has on average stayed at about 51 to 52 percent, a sign people like him and want him to succeed. But the generic Republican/Democratic congressional ballot has moved the GOP’s way. Pew still has the Democrats leading, but Rasmussen and Gallup have Republicans ahead by 6 and 4 points, respectively.

“There’s a fiendish plot on Sesame Street!“  … Or so says a sour right-wing blogger! According to blogger “Stage Right,” a recent episode featured journalist Oscar the Grouch of the Grouch News Network (GNN … get it!) offending a TV viewer. She, in turn, exclaims loudly “From now on. I am watching Pox News. Now there’s a trashy news show!”

And that peeved “Stage Right,” who wrote, “If Mom and Dad watch cable news, it’s better than 50/50 they watch “POX News.” So what gives? PBS — a network partially funded with my tax dollars — has the right to tell my kids that their parents watch “trashy” news? The message is clear, I can’t even sit my kids in front of “Sesame Street” without having to worry about the Left attempting to undermine my authority.” … Well, now I know why my four-year-old smiles when Al Gore’s on the TV screen and scowls at Dick Cheney!

But that’s not the funniest part. The PBS ombudsman agrees with “Stage Right!” He wrote,”  … this was one of those parodies that was too good to resist. But it should have been resisted.” It makes me think I’m living on Sesame Street. You can read more about the silliness and see the dread “Pox News” clip here

There’s an irony here, though: I’m a Fox News viewer, and I like that it’s a little bit trashier. In fact, one reason I tune into the O’Reilly Factor five nights a week is the hope they’ll be another glimpse at the “Hot for Words” woman — she’s almost a regular! Check her out below:

The Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives — with one GOP vote — barely passed a trillion dollar-plus health care bill. They needed to, or the issue would have died. But they ultimately succeeded only by passing an amendment that stripped Pelosicare from using taxpayer subsidies for abortion. At the same time, assuring angry pro-choicers that that abortion funding would be restored in a final bill. One of those factions is going to be disappointed, and unlikely to support a final Senate compromise bill, if it gets that far.

Pelosicare also allows illegal immigrants to purchase insurance from health exchanges. That was required to get the congressional Hispanic caucus on board. But the Senate will never go for that. The Senate will also strip or weaken the oppressive, big-government public option. There are several dozen House Dems who won’t vote for a bill without the public option … 40-plus more who insist on no abortion funding, and at least an equal number who insist on abortion funding,  … and 20 or so Hispanic caucus members who insist illegal aliens’ purchasing access remain in a final bill. Throw in the few dozen scared blue dogs who would like to be re-elected and  health care “reform” is far from over. In fact, I’d wager that, with such a tiny House margin, it’s sinking almost as fast as public support for Obama/Pelosi-care is.

When I walk into church with my family, lately I’ve thought of the quote from Atticus Finch in the classic novel, “To Kill a Mockingbird”: I got started late, the middle-aged Atticus told his still-young kids who marveled at his advanced age.

Atticus also liked to sit by himself in church. Was that because his still-young kids spent most of “preaching” scarfing down snacks, fighting over toys and flexing their elbows to find enough pew room to draw pictures.

I’m 46 years old; got married at 35. I started late. My wife Kati is 39 now; a bit younger. We have three kids parading the pews during sacrament meeting; an almost teenager, a just-baptized and a toddler who also likes to explore under the pew as well. Sometimes I’d like to sit only with my wife at church. Of course, I’d like to spend one day a week only with her as well; and maybe one day a month by myself. (I say that without fear because I know she shares that wish, too)

To get to the point of this column, we’ve both noticed that we’ve become “in-betweeners” at church. It’s worse for me. I’m too old for Elders Quorum and too young for High Priests. My pheripheral neuropathy won’t allow me to compete on the basketball court with the other elders. On the other hand, I don’t have enough anecdotes about the “good old days” to survive in high priests. I don’t have personal experiences of the Vietnam or Korean wars.

As my wife has noted, there are few parents with children our oldest’s age that are our age. And the parents with children the age of our two youngest tend to be younger than us.

In other words, for the first time in our ward experience, we’re not part of an identifiable ward “cluster.” It’s a strange feeling; there’s no group to turn to — which is an unconscious attraction of Mormonism. Our “in-betweeners” status is even reflected in our church callings, which are of a more singular nature than in the past.

I digress here to stress that we are not ostracized. Our ward is pretty darn good, just about everyone is friendly and our children feel accepted and have many peer friends. It’s just that, since we haven’t moved out of the ward — and have no plans to — we have experienced the different stages of ward membership that others may not live through.

And now, at “closer to 50” and “almost 40,” with those still-young kids, we’re in the “in-between” stage … and it’s different, even eerie. This will probably pass in a few years. In 10 years I’ll be holding court in high priests, talking about my daughters in college, married or on a mission and a son saving up for a mission.

Maybe in 25 years I’ll actually be at a state where I’d consider a single visit per month to the LDS temple as something to be ashamed of, rather than an amazing accomplishment given the stumbling, bumbling, hustling, hurried world in which my family and I exist in.

This column was published in today’s edition of Currents, the Standard-Examiner’s digital-only section on politics and culture. For information on Currents, call (801) 625-4400.

So what to make of Republican Bob McDonnell’s very easy win over Democrat Creigh Deeds in Virginia or GOPer Chris Christie’s close upset in New Jersey over Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine, who outspent Christie 3 to 1 and practically lived with President Obama the final week of the campaign? The White House wrote off Deeds a long time ago but Obama expended a lot of political capital in a failed effort to boost Corzine. Here’s a few observations:

1) Independents, who mostly supported Democrats in 2006 and 2008, are swinging back to the GOP. McDonnell scored 63 percent of the independent vote; Christie nabbed 58 percent. These numbers reflect independents’ concerns over the White House spending plans. There are dozens of Democrats in House districts that John McCain carried or Obama carried very narrowly in 2008. I can’t imagine these pols committing political suicide by supporting measures in 2010 that include a cap & trade energy bill or a Democratic-sponsored  immigration reform bill. Frankly, I think chances to pass health care insurance reform have dipped. Certainly, the Pelosi bill will have to cede ground to the Baucus Senate bill.

2) Also, voters were turned off by pols who attacked his or her opponent or identified too closely with an overly emotional base. Examples: Deeds’ attempts to link McDonnell to the Pat Robertson wing of the religious right backfired. In New Jersey, Corzine was running pathetic ads making fun of Christie for his weight! Conversely, in New York’s U.S. House District 23, voters rejected GOP-backed Conservative Party candidate, Doug Hoffman, who had the enthusiastic support of national GOP figures such as Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson as well as many talk radio and cable TV news personalities. Hoffman’s popularity had deflated the campaign of a liberal Republican nominee, who withdrew from the race and later endorsed eventual winner Democrat Bill Owens. Enough upstate New York voters were clearly turned off by Hoffman’s support from outside conservative activists. It will be interesting to see if the GOP can regain the seat next year.

3) Last night told us that big money can be a big liability. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg was supposed to win re-election easily after spending $100 million — what an obscene amount — but had to sweat it out before getting a narrow nod over city Comptroller Bill Thompson. What makes this so interesting is that the NYC Democratic party abandoned Thompson, who might have beat the independent Bloomberg with a little help. Add in big-spender Corzine’s loss in New Jersey and it seems that big-pocket candidates are turning off recession-weary voters who can think of better uses for $100 million.

4) Finally, while President Obama retains an average approval rating of slightly more than 50 percent, last night’s results clearly indicate that his popularity does not transfer to Democratic Party candidates. He has a year to change that. It will be an interesting 2010 campaign race that frankly, has already started.

In a survey I’m sure most readers haven’t seen reported, Republicans were more knowledgeable on more political issues than Democrats. The Pew Political IQ Test can be found at http://pewresearch.org/politicalquiz/ If you follow politics, it’s not too difficult a test.

In early October, Pew sampled respondents from both parties and independents, who scored highest in four categories and tied in one. Compared only to Democrats, Republicans scored significantly higher on: what issue cap & trade is related to; who the new Supreme Court justice is; which is the majority party in the U.S. Congress; what the current unemployment rate is; who the Federal Reserve chairman is; and where the Dow Jones Industrial Average is. There were small GOP pluralities on who the chair of the Senate Finance Committee is, do Iran and Israel share a border, and how many U.S. troops are in Afghanistan. The numbers are even on what issue the public option relates to and Democrats have a five-percent margin over the GOP on U.S. versus Europe health care costs. Oh yes, far more Republicans than Democrats also know who Glenn Beck is! For The Weekly Standard’s report on the numbers, go here: Read