-
Tebows in Paradise
June 11, 2013 | 62 comments
-
Dick Morris’ Bad Entitlements Advice
April 1, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Will Welker Walk?
March 11, 2013 | 273 comments
-
Not Yet Elite, But Pretty Neat
February 5, 2013 | 8 comments
-
The Harbaugh Bowl
January 22, 2013 | 33 comments
Political Hay
Partying Like It’s 1994
Poll-watching Republicans wonder: how low can the Democrats go?
The polls keep getting worse for the Democrats. Last week, Gallup showed the Republicans ahead by ten points — 51 percent to 41 percent — on the question of who registered voters would prefer to elect to Congress. This is the biggest generic ballot lead for the GOP in sixty years of polling by this venerable organization.
On most issues, voters preferred congressional Republicans to their Democratic counterparts. The only issue on which Democrats retained a statistically significant advantage was the environment. Compared to where they were in the last election, the Washington Examiner’s Byron York noted, there has been “a 38-point swing on health care, a 27-point swing on the economy, a 26-point swing on handling corruption in government, a 29-point swing on combating terrorism” — all away from the Democrats and toward the Republicans.
Then came a Washington Post/ABC News poll that showed Republicans with a 13-point lead in the generic ballot. Fully 92 percent of Americans said they believed the economy was in bad shape, with more disapproving of President Obama’s handling of that issue than approving. Dissatisfaction with the workings of the federal government was at it highest level since the month before Bill Clinton denied George H.W. Bush a second term in 1992.
The same day that poll was released, the Cook Political Report projected a Republican takeover of the House. Leading prognosticator Charlie Cook’s newsletter estimates that the GOP will gain at least the 40 seats it will need to regain the majority but the gains could be “very possibly substantially more.”
“Happy Days Are Here Again” is a New Deal-era tune Democrats long danced to. Should Republicans start singing it? The Washington consensus on the GOP’s 2010 electoral outlook ranges from moderate gains to huge gains, reminiscent of Stephen Colbert’s gag about George W. Bush: “Greatest president or great president?” As Sarah Palin quipped, “I can see November from my house.”
Number-cruncher Sean Trende of RealClearPolitics (yes, Trende is apparently his real last name) has been the most serious proponent of what we might call the maximalist case for the Republicans in this election. Way back in April, Trende wrote that “those who suggest that the House is barely in play, or that we are a long way from a 1994-style scenario are missing the mark. A 1994-style scenario is probably the most likely outcome at this point.”
Trende is now doubling down, predicting a “once-in-a-century storm” (the title of his latest piece is “Bigger Than 1994”). If the Republicans perform roughly as well in the national popular vote as they are faring in the generic ballot polls, he argues that the numbers predict substantial GOP gains. Even the one macro indicator that remains in the Democrats’ favor — the fact that Barack Obama still has a significantly higher approval rating than George W. Bush before the 2006 debacle — could be masking a problem.
Obama’s massive popularity with liberals, young people, and minorities might help his overall approval ratings, but this refurbished Dukakis coalition won’t be enough to keep Democratic congressional candidates from losing. These voters are mostly packed in already safe congressional districts and their turnout won’t approach 2008 levels without Obama himself on the ballot.
Now for the cold water: The micro indicators don’t look nearly as good. Republicans have lost most special elections since Obama became president. The party’s campaign committees are at a cash disadvantage against the Democrats and Michael Steele’s Republican National Committee bears a closer resemblance to the Titanic than to a well-run ship. Many Republican challengers in key districts are underfunded, a fair number of them are political neophytes, and there is little evidence of a sophisticated get-out-the vote operation.
The GOP’s biggest special election coup in the age of Obama was Scott Brown’s surprise election to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts. There the national party had little to do with his rise (though their infusion of cash did help him over the finish line), Brown was a rare Republican who had won multiple prior elections in the deep blue Bay State, and his Democratic opponent Martha Coakley was a one-woman turnout dampening operation. Republicans won’t be so lucky across the country.
The common thread in special elections Democrats have won is that they have succeeded in putting distance between themselves and the national party brand while their Republican opponents have tried to nationalize the election. Brown, by contrast, was successful in combining national and local themes while Coakley often behaved as if she had been dropped into Massachusetts by a UFO from Mars.
But how successful can Democratic incumbents be at denationalizing their races if they have a proven track record of voting in lockstep with the national party on controversial issues? The conditions do seem right for Republicans to retake Congress, with the major caveat of whether Republicans are prepared to take advantage of these conditions.
While writing a magazine article before the 2006 midterm elections, I asked a nationally known Democratic consultant if he thought this would be his party’s equivalent of 1994. He told me that 1994s don’t come along very often, so he was hesitant to predict one. Given how that November turned out, he was probably being too cautious. Are those predicting a narrowly Republican House being too cautious this year?
About the Author
W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (120) | Leave a comment
More Articles by W. James Antle, III
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/09/08/partying-like-its-1994
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Siegfried X| 9.8.10 @ 6:30AM
A better question would be: "Would it make any difference if we had a Republican president and congress now?"
Three years ago, a Republican president and congress tried to force amnesty on us. Only a citizen's revolt stopped it. This year, a Democratic president and congress tried to do the same thing, and were stopped only by citizens (Tea Party).
The big difference is that the 1994 election was about ideology, left vs. right, while we now have two identical parties trying to outspin each other. The two parties differ only on the military. The Reagan Revolution is dead, killed by the Republican leadership, Bush, and McCain at the end of the 20th century.
If there is any reason for hope at all, it comes from the Tea Parties, not the Republican Party. To me this feels like the 10th year of the Bush administration. Each morning I wake up to see what new left-wing legislation the president & congress have cooked up, and to hope that somehow the citizens and small remnant of conservative politicians will be able to fight it off.
We should see the new Contract With America within two weeks. I predict it will be very disappointing. Within a year from now the presidential candidates will need to come out with their own platforms, not just bash Obama. I predict those also will be disappointing. Rebirth of a conservative movement would take a decade or more, if it could happen at all.
canuckistani| 9.8.10 @ 9:12AM
What conservative idealists and nostalgia buffs fail to realize is that Americans LOVE the government teat to draw nourishment from - unfortunately the nourishment is now crack cocaine that will require generations in rehab to wean off of.
Whether it is actual welfare, corporate welfare, farm subsidies or military procurement largesse, the trough is a crowded place these days.
I want the Contract with America II to read one preamble: "In the course of human history, from time to time we must pause to recognize we have deviated from our noble course. The truth is this: We are addicted to government money, and we must enter detox together. The healing will be painful and those who refuse to participate will be remembered for their lack of vision and their willingness to punish the country even further...."
I may be a bit too hopeful that the contract will not be laced with veiled classist and bigoted euphemisms and the usual laundry list of social panderings to the fringe. Cynical, but sadly I have been proven right time and again with this bunch of RINO yahoos.
John Navratil| 9.8.10 @ 12:02PM
Yow! I have to agree with Canukistani - at least in the prescription. I am, however, not nearly so pessimistic as he and Siegfried X are in their view of the time required.
There is no guarantee that the R's will provide what Canuckistani so correctly prescribes. But we ARE in a revolution and have been since before the 2008 election. The Rockefeller Republicans are in the process of being rail-roaded out of town. Not all will be on the train this year, or perhaps ever. They will do their best to derail it and the fresh blood has a lot of work to do keep them from doing so. If this fails, we are in for a long and cold winter. But the wobblies (small 'w') will wobble in the right direction once the political wind blows strongly enough.
Unlike 1994, there are a lot of people who will, like I did in 1994, support a government shutdown if necessary. Does anyone really think the first people to be furloughed need to be food inspectors and first responders as was so cynically proposed by Clinton in 1994?
canuckistani| 9.8.10 @ 2:40PM
I hope the remedy is shorter.
What the class of 94 recognized was that even Willie knew he got into office on shear luck - strangely repeated with BHO (hmmm) - and was not so much wedded to leftist ideology, but to pragmatism.
The success of the ensuing years was a concious effort by the GOP to stay within the margins of fiscal restraint and limit deviations into social fiddling and cynical tax manipulations on behalf of the 1%-ers.
They lost me when Hyde and his cabal of idiots went forward with impeachment and began steering the country down the merry path of righteous indignation (when perverts were numbered amongst their own ranks), it was followed up after Armey left with the Shiavo episode. Was the class of 94 presenting a fiscally conservative facade only to have their true agenda exposed over time? Appears so, and that will be the test of the new bunch.
John Navratil| 9.8.10 @ 3:34PM
The cabal of idiots numbered me among their supporters. Canoodling the help was not my worry but suborning perjury was. The rascal was not as dangerous as the current occupant, but I'd just as soon not see criminal activity in the Oval Office.
The Terri Schiavo episode was a Greek tragedy. No good came of it for anyone.
canuckistani| 9.8.10 @ 4:30PM
It was a tough one, but it should still be reserved for crimes that actual affect the union.
It underwrote a decade of decline in civility and trust at the legislative level. It's tragic knowing we could have used the period to sue for more movement to fiscal restraint, focus on the Taliban and had a period of true debate about US policy. It consumed the air in the room for the balance of his presidency, and derailed the class of 94, leading to the legislative inanity of 02 and 03.
We could have had serious structural improvements in place by 01, regardless of who won the pres vote. (I know a little rosy, but possibilities existed)
John Navratil| 9.8.10 @ 4:57PM
Crimes by the President by definition affect the Union. Paula Jones was looking for her day in court and the President wanted to "fix" the case. I'll stipulate that the Jones case wasn't going to affect the Union, merely the Presidency. Yet the President saw fit to go outside the law. Does it remind you of Nixon? Illegal behaviour from the Oval Office or from any office holder should not be countenanced in the slightest. It is the very definition of tyranny.
It is a real pity that this was seen as partisan politics rather than an assault on the integrity of the court. Perversely, these very partisans are using to courts to criminalize policy differences.
canuckistani| 9.9.10 @ 8:34AM
Agreed, but the opportunity to railroad Clinton into right thinking was to be more of a benefit.
Knowing the likes of Mark Sanford was one of the biggest boosters of impeachment is all we need to know. The grownups sadly had little comment during the scene.
wodiej| 9.8.10 @ 2:48PM
Right you are about all the gov't freebies in lots of different ways. Farmers, corporations, single unmarried mothers and on and on. Social security should be phased out gradually too. We have 401k's, IRA's etc. People should be responsible for their own retirement. Those that can't have family that can help them. Isn't that what they do in other countries/
JohnK144| 9.8.10 @ 11:07AM
"Three years ago, a Republican president and congress tried to force amnesty on us"
Three years ago we didn't have a Republican Congress, and only a marginally Republican President. "Conservative leaders" were non-existent, and the only Tea Party anyone knew about happened in 18th century Boston.
In the past, "Rebirth of a conservative movement would take a decade or more" might have been a true statement. But the nearly instantaneous rise of the Tea Party movement gives us the best evidence that the Reagan Revolution never really died, it's only been asleep. And while I agree that we don't have reliable Republican leadership at this point, we are about to install a whole new crop of young guns that will one day become the Conservative titans that we will need in the future.
Siegfried X| 9.8.10 @ 7:32PM
OK, here is the meaningless, hair-split correction:
4 years ago the Republican majority congress tried to force amnesty down our throats. Only a people's rebellion stopped it.
3 years ago the Republican minority leaders tried to help the Democratic majority force amnesty on us.
It's nearly impossible to tell the two apart, since the RINO congress acted just like Democrats. Even after Democrats grabbed the majority, the Republican leaders just kept coming with amnesty.
Andrew| 9.8.10 @ 2:56PM
If both parties were the same as you imply, there would have been no outcry over Bush vs Gore, and no wild celebrations in 2006 and 2008. So much for the "it makes no difference" argument.
Siegfried X| 9.8.10 @ 7:36PM
The Democratic voters were fooled the same way as Republican voters were. They still don't realize that the Republican politicians changed sides and are now closet Democrats.
Also, the parties are different in the legal, mechanical sense, even though they are the same on issues, so party wonks cheer when their side wins.
Andrew| 9.9.10 @ 3:48PM
The fallacy in your argument is the feminists. If the parties were the same on issues, then a feminist could vote republican. Not only do they never vote republican, they have a visceral hatred and loathing for them.
Alan Brooks| 9.8.10 @ 8:16PM
"The Reagan Revolution is dead, killed by the Republican leadership, Bush, and McCain at the end of the 20th century."
Finally, an honest man. Repuglicans say they wont compromise in 2012-- but compromise is what politics is about. The GOP will give us a Gingrich this year, but another Bush in '16. It has been routinized since '96.
BTW, as long as America's skool sistim is so overpriced and undereducating I am ASHAMED TO BE AN AMERICAN.
Dave | 9.9.10 @ 9:06AM
Actually, the big question I still have is ... if the Republicans manage to win big in November, what are they going to do with all that "capital" after the hand is won?
tick-tick-tick ...
My concern? Be afraid, be VERY afraid of remaining RINOS. And while it's not an official federal warning, these political animals can be extremely hazardous to the national health.
Memo:
Never EVER forget: The Republicans' last presidential candidate had an official R next to his name. And we all know HIS lifetime voting record and the ability to spin on a dime while kissing liberal keister when voters need a little ... issues b.s.ing.
We'll see. We'll just have to wait and see. Say goodnight, John.
Dave - Ca.
Dan| 9.9.10 @ 10:50PM
Mr. X: I agree with your description of the problem with self-serving moderate Republicans that previously dominated Congress prior to the Democrat ascendency. The Republican Party needs to be cleansed of the liberals, moderates and RINO's and replaced with solid conservatives as in 1994 and then some. I think you are a bit too pessimistic about the outlook for that. Various efforts have been made throughout the country to nominate true conservatives to run against liberal Democrats including the Tea Parties and the Senate Conservatives fund. The efforts have been very successful. Consider for example Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate: Sen. Jim DeMint went against the Republican Party leadership and set up the Senate Conservative's Fund (SCF) to support true conservatives rather than the picks of the establishment Republicans. (So as not to totally piss off the establishment Republicans, he only involved the SCF for seats not already occupied by a Republican). Most of the candidates chosen by the SCF did in fact beat the establishment candidate and most of these candidates should beat the Democrat opponent in November and end up in the Senate. At present there are 9 such conservative Republican candidates being supported by the SCF (see them here: https://senateconservatives.com/). Next year we should have a dozen committed conservative Republicans in the Senate. The other Republicans will see the writing on the wall and start leaning more to the conservative side. Yes, it will take at least one more election cycle (in 2 years) to cement conservative control of the Republican Party, perhaps 4 more years of success will be necessary. But I think we will soon see we have made a great start.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 9.8.10 @ 6:45AM
Think of Washington as a game of musical chairs with this exception. When the music stops there's a chair for everyone with all their bad ideas.
There is no talk of stopping spending in Washington. What the public has gotten over the last 50 years is two different groups of spenders with a magic wallet to tap.
When the wallet is empty more promises and cash appear in the magic wallet.
The music never stops and neither do the bad ideas.
JohnK144| 9.8.10 @ 11:20AM
"There is no talk of stopping spending in Washington"
For what it's worth, John Boehner proposed a 2 year tax and spending freeze just today.
Here's the problem with that. We don't need a spending "freeze." We need massive spending REDUCTIONS. To be fair, Boehner wants spending to go back to 2008 levels (which would be a big cut), but until we start to approach federal expenditures in the same fashion as a Calvin Coolidge, we're not going to regain any real prosperity in this country. A slow transition back to a Constitutionally limited federal government is what we need. And we need to begin that transition NOW.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 9.8.10 @ 2:45PM
A freeze is not a cut in spending as you noted. It's simply another ploy by the ruling class to keep spending, just not spending a lot more. That won't help a bit.
Steve Baker| 9.9.10 @ 2:41AM
I'm no John Boehner fan by any stretch. However, to be fair, he proposed a freeze on tax increases and a return to pre-TARP 2008 spending levels which is significantly below what we're spending in 2010.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 9.9.10 @ 2:31PM
In all fairness to John Boehner one man is not a movement.
Melvin| 9.8.10 @ 7:15AM
Very little will change with the GOP. It is not that I am a pessimist about the 2010 elections that so many are pinning their hopes to, the simple fact is that there is a, "Ruling Political Class," and they'll shift a few per-functionary things around to give Conservatives the illusion of doing something.
But the 2012 elections will roll around and Conservatives, and Independents will still be gnashing their teeth and pulling their hair out.
There is a bright ray of sunshine though with the anti-establishment candidates who appear that they are going to win their seats. One of two things are going to happen. The Paul's and Tea Party Senators and House members will either be a very large irritant to the Ruling Class or the Ruling Class will immediately marginalize them to keep them from enacting any real reform.
There is just something that gnaws the hell out of me, in how John McCain won or bought his Senate Seat like he did? Maybe the Citizens of AZ knew something about Hayorth that we on the National scene didn't see. John McCain is going to be a very big interference within the Senate for Conservatives because the Democrats will use him as the dissenter within the Republican Party Leadership.
Siegfried X| 9.8.10 @ 7:41AM
"... the Ruling Class will immediately marginalize them ..."
That's the biggest problem, that the Democrats plus RINOs always make a majority, so they can simply ignore the conservative Republicans. The Democrats stick together but Republicans don't.
So the Democrats currently have 59 Senate votes, which means that if one RINO joins them, they can pass whatever they want, even if all the other Republicans are opposed.
That is another reason I can't be optimistic about the future, that the Republican leadership is aggressively recruiting RINOs, while squashing the candidacies of conservative Republicans. If a coach recruited the worst defensive players possible, wouldn't people suspect that he wanted the enemy to score touchdowns?
If the Republican leadership can get 10 to 20 RINOs on the team, then they almost guarantee that the Congress will always be passing left-wing legislation, regardless of which party technically has the majority.
JohnK144| 9.8.10 @ 11:31AM
"If the Republican leadership can get 10 to 20 RINOs on the team, then they almost guarantee that the Congress will always be passing left-wing legislation"
You're missing one very real dynamic this time around. If (and I do mean "if") there is a wave election in 2010 that sweeps in a good number of Conservative, Tea Party types, both RINOs and left-wing legislators will be living in a state of fear for their future elections. The American People who rose up to change leadership in Congress this time around will be watching their every move, and in just two short years most of them will be facing reelection once again. And since RINOs have no ideological spines, they will sell out the "progressive" agenda just as easily as they've sold out the Conservative agenda, especially if it means their political survival.
Siegfried X| 9.8.10 @ 8:03AM
Even if McCain moved in with the Obamas, and started sleeping in their bed, Republicans would still re-elect him. He was a P.O.W.
Dai Alanye | 9.8.10 @ 7:16AM
As the foregoing comments demonstrate, a pessimist always has the best chance for happiness.
If things turn out good he'll be surprised but pleased, while if they turn out bad he can always say, "I told you so."
John Navratil| 9.8.10 @ 12:06PM
But the pessimist must always live like Eeyore to keep that chance alive.
Kelly Staples| 9.8.10 @ 7:35AM
Palin/Bolton 2012.
Tom| 9.8.10 @ 8:08AM
Reverse that and I'd be on board in a heartbeat.
Albert| 9.8.10 @ 12:07PM
I would take that ticket in any order. Might I suggest Joe Arpaio as an alternate. Perhaps Arpaio/Bolton? After living with Hillary, Barbara, Dianne, and Nancy for soooooo long, (not to mention Lisa, Blanch, Sonia, Janet, and Elena) perhaps it is time that MEN stood up and took these jobs and let the girls take some time off.
George True| 9.8.10 @ 1:02PM
I agree with the sentiment, but Arpaio would be the wrong guy. He is nothing but a self-serving, self-promoting thug who wraps himself up in the conservative flag. Here in Maricopa County AZ, many conservatives are finally waking up to who and what he really is.
Margie| 9.8.10 @ 1:54PM
Mr. True,
I'm surprised to hear you say this. Care to expound a bit on Joe Araio? I thought he was a fantastic guy fearlessly doing the right thing! You say he's a thug? Why?
George True| 9.8.10 @ 2:37PM
Margie: It would take a rather lengthy post to go into it all, and I do not want to take this thread totally off-topic to do it. I do applaud anyone who rounds up illegal aliens, even Arpaio. But he does it primarily for political purposes, and with great publicity and fanfare. Meanwhile, other law enforcement agencies in Arizona quietly round up many times more illegals than Arpaio does, with no publicity whatsoever.
John Navratil| 9.8.10 @ 12:36PM
Let them draw straws at a Tea Party rally :)
dan| 9.9.10 @ 10:56PM
I'll take Palin/Bolton. Bolton has really seriously gone to battle for the US. Did you come up with Bolton or is that being thrown around elsewhere?
Tim*| 9.8.10 @ 7:38AM
Larry J. Sabato, Director, U.Va. Center for Politics :
" Given what we can see at this moment, Republicans have a good chance to win the House by picking up as many as 47 seats, net."
In the Senate, we now believe the GOP will do a bit better than our long-time prediction of +7 seats. Republicans have an outside shot at winning full control (+10)."
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates .
Remember In November.
vtwin| 9.8.10 @ 10:23AM
"Republicans and Democrats are tied at 46% among registered voters in Gallup's weekly tracking of congressional voting preferences."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/142.....allot.aspx
vtwin| 9.8.10 @ 10:26AM
Apparently, we have started to remember.
JeffW| 9.8.10 @ 10:44AM
Ahhh Vtwin spins it again. Just remember this poll is registered voters, not likely voters. And lets not forget the low enthusiasim currently of the Democrat "Likely Voters".
Tim*| 9.8.10 @ 10:55AM
Republicans Up in Realclearpolitics Poll Averages :
RCP Average 8/25 - 9/5 -- Republicans : 48.4% Democrats :41.7% , Republicans Up +6.7
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
Albert| 9.8.10 @ 12:12PM
That's very cute, Mr. Twin. Exactly why do worship at the altar of the stoned donkey? Do you want 25% unemployment? Do you want national bankruptcy? Do you want escalated attacks on America and Americans? Do you like high levels of crime and violence? That's what you are voting for, assuming you actually vote.
Steve A| 9.8.10 @ 10:35AM
Hey vtwin, You are a funny man. Keep deluding yourself, pal.
John Navratil| 9.8.10 @ 12:07PM
I vote we give 'vtwin' his own column on November 3 to explain what really happened.
Tim*| 9.8.10 @ 10:45AM
"Americans Give GOP Edge on Most Election Issues
Greatest Republican advantages on terrorism, immigration, federal spending ."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/142.....ssues.aspx
JP| 9.8.10 @ 3:41PM
Gallup only polls registered voters. All the rest of the polling firms poll likely voters. Gallup is about 5-8 percentage points off the median in the Dems favor. That is, Gallup is an outlier.
Shamus| 9.8.10 @ 7:45AM
Democrats continue to do the things that have made voters hate them, so their prognosis is poor. Some candidates even hide their party affiliation in ads.
It's possible that voters will change their minds before now and November. They could rethink their disdain for the liberal agenda, or they could all break to conservative candidates. But the exact numbers probably aren't that important, since the GOP will not gain enough votes in the Senate to allow them to beat filibusters.
This means that the next two years will be like an extended campaign. Neither party will have control and both will need to get public support to do anything. Obama is aware of this, and he is preparing for 2012.
Tom| 9.8.10 @ 8:11AM
You are right about the fillibuster but control of the agenda is still important. If the democrats have a majority they will schedule a tidal wave of bills such as "Children are really wonderful why do Republicans want to sell them into slavery to the Evil Oil Corportations?" and "Comprehensive Reform Act Reforming Evil Republican Corporations Who Are Stealing Your Money and Raping Your Trees".
Shamus| 9.8.10 @ 10:31AM
Control of the agenda is an important advantage, but it can also be a liability. If Democrats were to hold on to both chambers by slim majorities, they would control the agenda, but would be held to account for poor economic results. Unless the US economy were better by 2012 they would face another difficult election. If Republicans control the agenda they will own the economic results to some extent. The political debate will revolve around who gets blame or credit for the situation in 2012.
Tom| 9.8.10 @ 1:08PM
Shamus,
Your point is excellent. One of my biggest fears is we will have a repeat of Clinton. A Republican Congress reigning in - at least moderately so - spending while the economy rebounds and deficits shrink. And Obama receives the credit because presidents usually do.
I think, however, that it is less likely this time. Obama is neither as smart nor as wiley as Clinton. It will take consistency of message and purpose but I believe that if Obama weilds his veto pen on sensible Republican proposals he'll be sunk.
But then again I am such an optimist I have been married twice...
Steve Baker| 9.9.10 @ 2:51AM
Control of the purse strings means using reconciliation to null out funding for a host of Obama's junk. You know the R's will get the Grinch treatment by the MSM. They need to go on the offensive as the firewall between Obama and the Dems and your kids and grandkids chance to live the American dream. When the economy rebounds, they need to be taking credit every time a camera is stuck in their face.
dan| 9.9.10 @ 11:18PM
Look, we are one Supreme Court justice away from trashing the Constitution. One more liberal on the bench and it may not matter how we vote anymore. We need to be able to filibuster any further Obama appointees and a Republican majority in the Senate will ensure that the filibuster is maintained under Obama.
Curly Smith| 9.8.10 @ 8:26AM
What's the difference between a Blue Dog Democrat and a RINO? Both run as Conservatives and both work to move the country leftward. The Blue Dog is a reliable Conservative vote - provided the Dems have enough other votes to pass the liberal legislation. In fact, the Blue Dog is very likely a more Conservative voter than the RINO.
The difference is that we're urged to vote the Blue Dogs out of office because it's widely recognized that they only serve to advance the liberal agenda. A vote for a Blue Dog is a vote for Nancy Pelosi. But we're also urged to vote for any Republican over a Democrat and told to ignore the obvious lack of party discipline in the GOP. A Blue Dog won't be allowed to move the Dems to the right, the legislation would never see the light of day. A RINO is allowed, even encouraged, to move the GOP to the left. A Blue Dog won't cross the base of the Party, a RINO routinely spits on the base of the GOP. Hmmm... I may be wrong... the GOP does have party discipline if it's a center-left party.
We'll only get progress with the GOP when we learn that a vote for a Republican is a vote for Susan Collins and we're willing to remove the GOP from power when the Party votes the wrong way. We have to hold the party accountable for the RINOs, even if it means voting the most conservative Republicans out of office. We have to get over the idea that elections are too important for the party to be accountable for what they do.
The GOP wants power - fine, they can have it on *our* terms.
Steve Baker| 9.9.10 @ 3:17AM
I can't think of a dumber strategy than punching out conservatives in the party to spite RINOs. That's like pruning a bush with grenades. Reminds me of my 3-year old pouting because he only got 90% of what he wanted for Christmas.
If you really want to change the system and purge RINOs, take a long look at Jim DeMint's PAC and the effect it's had on the blue bloods. He's P.O.ed the party establishment by supporting true conservative challengers to their hand-picked RINOs. It's working. Paul in Kentucky, Buck in Colorado, Miller in Alaska, Angle in Nevada, Toomey in Pennsylvania, Lee in Utah, Rubio in Florida, etc. All were underdogs in the primaries before rising to oust the establishment backed opponents.
There's a decent chance that we'll witness the end the political career of Uber RINO Mike Castle in the Delaware primary next week. That would really be the icing on the cake.
Louis Jenkins| 9.8.10 @ 9:05AM
"Should Republicans start singing it?"
NO! There is always work to be done. Even if the Republicans win there will be plenty of RINOs out there, and they should be cut out of the herd as soon as possible. McCain should be the first, however, he's in for another 6 years. The Republican leadership will preen and strut, but we've got them in our sights. No more co-opting the Tea Party.
George True| 9.8.10 @ 9:26AM
I have to respectfully disagree with your last paragraph. As much as I despise both Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, I would certainly vote for the likes of them over ANY Democrat. RINO's do vote the Republican party line at least some of the time. John McCain earns ACU grades from one year to the next of anywhere from 60 to 90, so even someone like him is useful more often than not.
This year we have finally seen put to rest the ridiculous notion that we shouldn't support ideological conservatives in the primaries because they were not 'electable' in the general. In the primaries we must always support to the hilt the candidates who best embody conservative principles. But no matter who wins the primary we should always support the Republican in the general, even if he or she is a RINO. (Unless there is a realistically viable third-party conservative running, ie-Doug Hoffman in NY-23.)
Once we get a nucleus of true Federalists elected, they can and will stiffen the spines of the RINO's. Then we have another go at getting the RINO's out of the house the next time around in two years. It is not going to happen all at once. It is an ongoing process. Wash, rinse, repeat.
But to vote for the Dem, or to just stay home to "teach the GOP a lesson"?? Never!!! We saw how that worked out in 2008. As a result of a lot of conservatives doing that, the Dems have now done unimaginable harm to all of us, which will take years to undo, if it even can be undone. No, we must ALWAYS support the Republican (or viable third-party conservative) in the general election. By doing this, we can sooner or later effect a hostile takeover of the GOP from the inside out. But NOT voting Republican in the general is the same thing as voting FOR Democrats, which does incalculable harm to us all.
George True| 9.8.10 @ 9:28AM
My comments above were directed to the third paragraph in Curly's comments.
Curly Smith| 9.8.10 @ 10:44AM
The problem with your position, and it's one that I used to share, is that you're telling the GOP that under no circumstance will you hold them accountable for their collective behavior. You're of the position that the Democratic Party is so bad that you'll accept anything that the GOP does. And, you're then surprised when the GOP becomes a self-serving oligarchy.
If we believe that the GOP is basically conservative then the minority RINOs make all of the policy decisions because, as Siegfried X says above, they can flock to the collective Democratic vote and either block or pass any legislation. The RINOs have all of the power - we have none.
Your position arises from fear, fear of what the Democrats will do. And, while it's a valid concern, I think it's backwards. We shouldn't fear the Democrats; rather the GOP should fear us. The only thing that kept the usual suspects from joining the ObamaCare vote was fear - fear of what the voters would do to them in November. And, not surprisingly, Olympia Snowe ran scurrying away from the "Gang of Six" because she values power over principle.
We're on the cusp of a once in a generation, if not a lifetime, opportunity to fundamentally change the GOP for the better. The Blue Dogs are an endangered species and may well be hunted to extinction in November. But if the GOP doesn't govern in accordance with the will of the people and attempt to make drastic structural changes then 2012 will be "The Return of the Blue Dogs" and the GOP will be swept from power, never to be seen again.
The time is now, it's not in 2012, 2016, 2020 or 2040. We shouldn't be like Cubs fans always waiting for the next election.
George True| 9.8.10 @ 12:13PM
Curly: I agree with you in principle, but how do you actually "hold the GOP accountable for their collective behavior"? By staying home on Nov 2nd? Or voting for a Dem? Neither of these is a viable course of action.
The way we hold them accountable is by getting true Federalist conservatives elected in the PRIMARIES. We have seen an astonishing number of primary campaigns this year where the renegade tea-party conservative beat the well-funded establishment Republican.
We have elected candidates in the primaries who defeated the RNC and RNSC and RNCC anointed ones. We have rocked their world, and will continue to do so from the inside once our Patrick Henry types get to D.C. But now that the primaries are over, we unite behind whoever the GOP candidate is.
The only thing that will "teach a lesson" to the GOP establishment is to throw their asses out in the primaries. In the general election, you have no realistic choice but to vote Republican. Any thing else is idealistic folly.
Curly Smith| 9.8.10 @ 2:02PM
I used to agree that we had to vote Republican because the alternative was so much worse but I now think that those who abandoned the GOP in 2006 and 2008, and that led to the current crop of buffoons, should be celebrated as heroes. (No, I wasn't one of them). Their action allowed the country a glimpse of the desired end state - and it's dreadful. The difference between what the Dems did and what the RINOs intend is that the Dems did it instantaneously and the country said "Holy Constitution Party Batman!".
The message that the GOP needs to receive is that in 2012 we'll vote for the Democrat in an election between a RINO and a Democrat. The GOP must understand that we'll no longer accept business as usual, that we demand fundamental change. I know what I'm saying is apostasy but it's far easier to excite the base to remove a Democrat than it is to replace a RINO who "voted the right way 51% of the time".
We have to force the GOP to behave until your plan takes effect. If the GOP doesn't change then we'll see an outbreak of 3rd parties in 2012, which would be a very bad outcome for the country. And the only thing that will force the GOP to change is the fear of what we'll do to them if their colleagues legislate against our interests. In other words, John Boehner needs to fear what Olympia Snow, Susan Collins or John McCain does because the answer to "I did all I could but you know how the RINOs are" will be "well, then we don't need you anymore".
Egg Seller| 9.8.10 @ 10:06AM
James Thurber said years ago,"don't count your boobies untill they're hatched. What with internicine warfare and ballot stuffing, when the dust settles the Dems may still be in charge.
Anthony| 9.8.10 @ 10:06AM
Yeah, well, assuming all goes according to plan, brother Newt and the other wobbly Rs, had better grow a pair and act like principled conservatives.
If we get more get along, go along, crap from these RINOs in conservative clothing, they will suffer the same fate.
Remember Newt, once burned, twice shy!! We are watching you guys.
Tom| 9.8.10 @ 10:10AM
George,
I think your analysis is spot on. A true conservative is not going to win Collins' or Snowe's seats and conservatives are better off with a reliable 50% voting record from an electable RINO rather than a reliable 0% voting record from a liberal democrat. I think the key is nominating the most conservative candidate who can actually win in the general election.
This of course is very subjective. Sometimes it is not easy to predict who is and who is not electable. There are more and better conservatives running in this cycle; hopefully, they will win their general elections and push what is electable a little futher - or a lot further! - to the right.
Siegfried X| 9.8.10 @ 10:41AM
Only a left-winger could think that conservatives can't win everywhere. Reagan won across the whole country and in all groups because real conservatism kicks progressive butt every time.
George True| 9.8.10 @ 10:48AM
"Only a left-winger could think that conservatives can't win everywhere."
Or a realist, Sig. The RINO Scott Brown just barely won in Massachusetts, against a candidate so unappealing that even Dems were appalled at her.
Tom| 9.8.10 @ 1:28PM
Siegfried,
Are you calling me a left winger?
Yes, if all we had to run against were Carter and Mondale we could probably run the table. But guess what? Democrats do occassionally run decent candidates. Their ideas are false, their policies inane, but they know how to run a campaign. Beyond that in 1980 Reagan hardly won across all groups. He lost Blacks, Hispanics, voters making less than 12.5K/year, and voters 18-21. Even in 1984 when he recieved nearly 60% of the vote he lost the same groups of voters. I do not have access to it but I am pretty sure if you were to look at results broken down by congressional district.
Whether you like it or not their are congressional districts and states where a Pat Toomey does not stand a chance. I wish it was not but it is. And I'd rather have a squishy RINO who would caucus with the Republicans and can be counter on 6-70% of the time than a democrat which will vote against my interests 100% of the time.
Sheila| 9.8.10 @ 10:10AM
To paraphrase John Derbyshire, you're all marching east on a west-bound ship. Decline and fall.
Margie| 9.8.10 @ 10:52AM
And what may I ask dear Shelia are YOU marching to?
RCV| 9.8.10 @ 9:38PM
Sheila, you must be the life-of-the-party at every social gathering.
Sam Vaughn| 9.8.10 @ 10:50AM
On Maine's senator's. Being a resident of Maine one has to live here to realize that conservatism is alive and well. Most Mainer's though lifelong Democrats are conservative when they talk about what is important to them. A true conservative could toss Snow and Collins out of office then we can talk about Chellie Pingree as well. Mainer's are tired of being a colonyof Massachusett's, ask any Mainer what they call people from Mass. behind their backs, it's not flattering. They're tired of Taxchusett's type's coming to Maine setting up shop and ruining their lives, just ask a lobsterman about all the "well-intentioned" regulations (can you spell "ghost gear"). No it would be a mistake to assume Mainer's wouldn't go for a conservative. The problem is a conservative has never run, so they take the next best thing. When you cross the border into Maine leave you Northeast prejudices behind, real Mainer's work hard and proud and don't need the rest of the NE. We can take care of ourselves very well.
The lesson, don't assume a true Reagan conservative can't win here. They would win in a landslide.
Siegfried X| 9.8.10 @ 11:03AM
"The problem is a conservative has never run, so they take the next best thing. "
Absolutely. It is the same thing all over. The Republican leadership got burned in battles with the Democrats in the mid-90's, so they turned away from Reagan conservatism, afraid to even try. Now the Party has atrophied to the point where Republican politicians don't even know what a Reagan conservative is any more.
Sam Vaughn| 9.8.10 @ 11:33AM
PS. if you don't think good old Yankee rebellion is alive and well, look up the secession of Long Island, Maine from Portland.
Tom| 9.8.10 @ 1:44PM
Sam,
You do realize Maine has the highest tax burden -as a percentage of income -in the United States? And Taxghusetts is 28th?
Maine has 2 csngressmen, both democrats, 2 senators , nominally republican, a democrat governor, a democrat advantage of 20-15 in the state senate, a democrat advantage of 95-55 in the state house, and a democrat advantage of 13% in registered voters. Where is there evidence of a conservative tidal wave?
Sam Vaughn| 9.8.10 @ 7:07PM
Tom, fine obfuscatory reply. There is no conservative tidal wave to which I did not imply. There is such a thing as good old fashioned Yankeee common sense. We know it when we see it but we have not seen it in a long time in our elected officials. If our tax burdens in Maine are too high we have Taxachusett's drop-outs to thank for that. So Tom, where do you stand?
Tom| 9.8.10 @ 8:25PM
Sam,
Ok, I will make it simpler: Where is there evidence of any broadbased conservative movement in Maine? Democrats are constantly elected to statewide and federal offices, not republicans.
Saying it is so, wishing is so, does not make it so. Maine is a left of center state with pockets of conservatism. Whether it is because of 'Taxachusset's' drop outs or not does not matter. I am not disparaging the conservatism of native borne citizens of Maine but it is no way a conservative state.
Where do I stand? I want the most conservative electable candidates possible. I would rather have a core conservative than a RINO and I would rather have a RINO than a democrat.
Margie| 9.8.10 @ 10:58AM
I of course fully agree with George True's comments as they speak the truth. But the crybabies and complainers will stay home or write in their bro-in-law's name on the ballot because their goal is perfection and no candidate is pure enough for them.
They are part of the problem not the solution. Like our regular poster Alan Brooks says~ he'll vote Dem till the GOP runs a real conservative.
Some have more hatred for the Republicans than they do for the Left. Why is it that instead of focusing on defeating the enemy by voting for the opposition party they choose rather to punish the Republican party? The only viable party that can defeat them? It baffles the mind!
Sam Vaughn| 9.8.10 @ 11:30AM
Margie, point well taken. I voted for McCain and Olympia Snowe. That's why I'm a Tea Party supporter. Politics start's locally, when we're all involved who get's chosen to lead. I'll be the first to admit I ignored politics while I was building my career and business. The fallout is, like many, I was paying attention to who was running and getting elected locally. Not only do I think the Tea Party can run conservative candidates to oust Republicans I think they can run conservative candidates inside the Democrat party. If we demand character, courage, honor, integrity from our politicians a liberal leftist can not run, they have none of the above.
John Navratil| 9.8.10 @ 12:12PM
Some will do as you suggest. I, and many, have lamented lack of true conservative principles in R candidates and voted for them -- Hobson's choice. Still I prefer a principled opposition rather than a go-along-to-get-along party in control.
Tim*| 9.8.10 @ 4:53PM
Well Marge , you voted in for the Serial Traitor to Conservatism John McCain , the proud owner of McCain-Lieberman , McCain -Kennedy , McCain-Feingold , Gang of 14 ,Opposing The Bush Tax Cuts of 2001 & 2003 , TARP .
Aaaand , My Brother-In-Law is a Much Better Conservative than McCain .
Margie| 9.8.10 @ 5:45PM
Well goody goody gum drops for ya, dude.
Tim*| 9.8.10 @ 6:08PM
Hold That Thought Margie .
Margie| 9.9.10 @ 12:17PM
Oh, and by the way little man~ you have no right to complain about the present scumbag in office since you threw away your vote. Those who throw away their votes, or do not vote at all have not the right since you do not partake in the process. You're useful idiots!
Tim*| 9.8.10 @ 11:25AM
Ronald Reagan :
" If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path."
Siegfried X| 9.8.10 @ 11:53AM
Yes this is correct. Like Reagan says, absolute libertarianism is bad. That's why I am a conservative, not a libertarian.
Tim*| 9.8.10 @ 12:39PM
There are Libertarian Party Members and there are libertarian conservatives.
If you're a true Reagan Conservative , you're a libertarian conservative .
There aren't that many absolute libertarians .
There are many categories and degrees of Libertarians . From Classical Liberals , like most of Our Founding Fathers , to Paleolibertarians , to Fiscal Libertarians , etc.
Many libertarian conservatives are registered Republicans .
Steve Baker| 9.9.10 @ 3:38AM
I used to put Dick Cheney and his brood on the Libertarian side of the Republican party. He's not got an issue with gays, is very pro-gun, I'm pretty sure he is pro-choice like Liz, and he probably doesn't give a tinker's damn about some guy in Alaska growing his own little patch of mother nature. But then came the Patriot Act and that changed that perception forever.
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.8.10 @ 11:50AM
Margie,
Thanks again for the reminder.
Folks,
The entire PREMISE of the American system of government is "compromise"!
The problem is that the compromises have gone one direction for too dmned long. 50-50...OK, I can live with that, perhaps even 60-40 because I am agile enough to duck the 10 percent aimed at me.
70-30...ummmmm things get sort of sticky and I get hurt.
80-20 Ouch! my ox is gored to death....but I still get to butcher the ox and eat the meat.
Folks, it seems to me that we are somewhere around 90-10 in these days.
The biggest "evil corporation" in America is the federal government nearing total monopoly.
Now,
We could change that in a matter of weeks. Our slogan could be: "SHOOT ONE BUREAUCRAT TODAY...AND I WILL SHOOT A COMMUNIST SENATOR."
Heh, "communist Senators" would get scarce as hen's teeth very quickly. We would see massive "I've seen the light" conversions to constitutional righteousness...in a heart-beat.
But...then we got a problem. Our "Ruling Class" then slides behind a wall of protection in castles and body-guards and such.
So what IS the answer?
How about we go back to 50-50....call it 1960 or so when John Kennedy said things like..."bear any burden"..."what you can do for your country..."
Let's push for repeal of every law since 1961, and start at a 50-50 compromise again.
Thoughts?
Tom| 9.8.10 @ 1:46PM
"The biggest "evil corporation" in America is the federal government nearing total monopoly."
If this wasn't so long I'd put it on a bumper sticker.
Sam Vaughn| 9.8.10 @ 7:14PM
NICE, the biggest big we have to worry about today is big government. The bursting of the next debt bubble will make the tech bubble and home debt bubble look like ripples in a pond. In case your wondering the next big bubble to burst will be the government debt bubble. Except there is no market to make the correction....
Margie| 9.8.10 @ 2:17PM
Ken,
Excellent thoughts as always. Shoot one bureaucrat a day! FOCUS on your local bureaucrat and/or Communist Senator and focus on voting them out! If WE don't get involved ourselves, nobody will. And no excuses for complaining then if we don't!
Repealing the laws since '61 a good idea. Imagine if our Repubbies would start suggesting this as they campaign! Are you listening, guys? (And gals?)
Siegfried X| 9.8.10 @ 11:56AM
The choice is easy for me because I'm a conservative, not a Republican. I only vote for conservatives, period. If the Republican Party doesn't run a conservative, then it's their fault that I vote against them.
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.8.10 @ 1:33PM
Sieg...
You, Sir are a STUPID.
Further,
You are a liar!
You continually whine about "impure conservatives".
You, Sir are a committed communist, throwing turds in the punchbowl.
If you guys win the existential argument...I sincerely hope to see you personally over open sights one day.
Nick| 9.8.10 @ 12:42PM
Party loyalty, voting for the "R" instead of the "d," is only part of the problem, folks. Yes, having liberal democrats in charge of Congress is bad for the country.
But, just as big of a problem, at the national level, is the entrenched power of incumbency. It is a problem that affects both parties.
A person who has held the same House or Senate seat for 20, 30, 40+ years is a danger to the Republic. That is why the Swimmer Kennedy and Sheets Byrd were so powerful. This why it is good that Bennet and S-P-E-C-T-E-R were kicked out by the voters.
The longer they hold their seats, the more friends they make in the bureaucracies of D.C. They become part of the Beltway. This is why none of them go home when they do get defeated. They become lobbyists.
McLame is a prime example of this entrenched power. As bad as Hayworth would've been, at least he would've replaced someone who has too much power and wields it to the detriment of the nation.
It would be nice to take control of the Senate this election. But, not if a bunch of old goats, who have been there since I was a teenager, are going get the chairmanships.
It is high time that We the People enact our own version of TERM-LIMITS.
Margie| 9.8.10 @ 2:11PM
Nick,
I agree with your comments but I'd still prefer an old goat to a snake any day!
But seriously, Mr. True's comments @ 9:26 & 12:13 are magnifico! And I'm not even Italian. And Dr. Rights's as well. VOTE in the primaries, always vote no matter what. We the people need to take control of our government again. What I see (and all of us) is that that IS happening again with the TEA parties and everybody getting involved.
I've said this before but I love saying it again~ Thanks, Obama! (Remeber he said we ought to be thanking him or some such thing?) Because of you America is waking up to what the Left truly is~ and we aren't liking it!!
Excelsior!!
Nick| 9.8.10 @ 4:11PM
Margie,
"I agree with your comments but I'd still prefer an old goat to a snake any day!"
So do I. That is why I voted for McLame over O'Bama!
My main point is that there is a wider problem than just getting control of Congress. We must retire these golden oldies, like Snarlin' Arlen, and dump the newbies when they stray, like Murkowski.
Also, we need to agressively target democrats in red states, like Dorgan in ND and Lincoln in AR. In '06, the GOP threw good money down the toilet to support RINO Linc Chafee in RI. Money that could have went to Rick Santorum in PA and Jim Talent MO. There is no excuse for democrats to hold Senate seats in western red states.
I demand integrity from elected officials who swear an oath to Almight God, as we all should. The time has long past to start holding them accountable to that oath.
Have a good day, Margie, and tell Victor I said, "Hi!"
God Bless!
Margie| 9.8.10 @ 4:46PM
Main point well taken and fully agreed upon, sir!
George True| 9.8.10 @ 1:21PM
I supported Hayworth over McCain, but at the same time I knew he would get crushed, as he did. I have pondered why this happened, and I think there are multiple reasons.
First and foremost, McCain had a campaign war chest of 15-20 million dollars. He was able to outspend Hayworth something like 20 to 1.
Second, his attack ads against Hayworth painted J.D. as some kind of tax-and-spender. It was an outrageously false claim, but when you have the money to blanket the airwaves with such a message, some people will believe it.
Third, several years back, J.D. did an infomercial for a company that hooks people up with government grant money. This was in no way illegal or unethical, and not even un-conservative, as some of the grants were for people who wanted to do small business startups that would create jobs. But McCain's attack ad machine was able to gin it up into a full-blown scandal.
Finally, I think there was some degree of sentiment about McCain that "he may be a Rino, but he's OUR Rino. Or maybe a certain amount of "better the devil we know than the devil we don't know".
Having said all this, I must admit to being a bit of a hypocrite. After voting for J.D. late in the day, I immediately went downtown to the convention center and attended McCain's victory party, where I greatly enjoyed his free food and wine. (I was invited as a result of having donated a significant amount of money to his 2008 presidential campaign, but that is a whole 'nother story.)
George True| 9.8.10 @ 1:32PM
Also, Arizona is not as conservative a state as you might think. After all, the voters here, in their questionable wisdom, voted Janet Napolitano into the governor's office not once, but twice.
Siegfried X| 9.8.10 @ 1:36PM
That's why it will be MUCH MUCH harder for Tea Party candidates to win in the next election. The RINO candidates will unload on their TP opponent with millions of dollars and every tool they have.
Siegfried X| 9.8.10 @ 1:47PM
Copied from above:
Even if McCain moved in with the Obamas, and started sleeping in their bed, Republicans would still re-elect him. He was a P.O.W.
Anthony| 9.8.10 @ 3:34PM
Yep, McCain played his P.O.W. card for the last time. Question is, how quickly will he revert back to RINO McCain?
Nick| 9.8.10 @ 3:46PM
Anthony,
Answer: Before you wake-up on the morning of November 3rd!
Nick| 9.8.10 @ 2:34PM
Mr. True,
I understand why Hayworth lost, and agree with the list you've compiled. I would add that J.D. lost his House seat because of a combination of his district being redrawn and the appearance of flip-flopping on illegal aliens and amnesty.
I've heard several people say J.D. may have had his problems, but he was the only one with the guts to take on McLame, because nobody else would run agianst Johnny, for fear of retribution. It is the entrenched power of incumbency that allows someone to wield such power over their own state.
This should be main focus of the Tea Party movement. Cut down the old, dead trees, and make sure the new seedlings keep growing straight.
It's nice to know that McLame is good for something: Free food and drink!
Purple Lips| 9.8.10 @ 1:44PM
From a future WSJ report:
Senator Mike Castle, the Republican Majority Leader, in his first order of business congratulated newly inaugerated President Chelsea Clinton Mezvinsky. After meeting behind closed doors, Senator Castle (aka Abdullah bin Shabbaz) announced he would fast track a bill that would make President's Day Bill Clinton Day. In return, Senator Castle promised the GOP run Congress that President Clinton would freeze the $19 trillion federal budget.
Afterwards, both the Majority Leader and the President attended prayer services at the Cordoba Mosque in New York City. The 2 political adversaries both admitted that converting to Islam opened up thier eyes to an entire new world. And the 65 story mosque, which sits in the Little Mecca District of Manhatten, was filled with over 50,000 worshippers. Also in attendence was New York City Mayor Faisel Rauf, former beauty queen and current owner of the New York Yankees Sarah Palin, and former President Bush and his family. All are recent converts, and they join a growing list of well known public figures to join the Religion of Peace...
In other news, the FDA currently added Pork to its growing list of forbidden products. An industry official...
Doctor Right| 9.8.10 @ 1:47PM
Be very wary of the "maskirova" being enacted by the left-wing media.
Tales of the Democrats imminent demise are meant to lull Republicans and Conservatives into a false sense of security on election day.
To that end, don't let ANYTHING deter you from voting, no matter how confident you may feel.
The Dems are going to take some big hits, but the goal now is to slow the tsunami. Any Democrat win will be portrayed as a MAJOR victory against the evil forces of Conservatism and the Tea Party, and will be discussed ad-nauseum on Lib-TV.
VOTE!!! Even if you get home, and it's over, and your candidate won, GO VOTE!!! It's not enough to beat these bastards, we have to crush them and every vote counts.
Tim*| 9.8.10 @ 2:02PM
From Jim DeMint's Conservatives Fund PAC , to The Club For Growth , to The Tea Party Moneybomb , to The Kolbs , etc . Tea Party Candidates will continue to get competitive financial campaign support .
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.
Lead , Follow Or Get Outta Da Way .
Jim Mulcahy| 9.8.10 @ 2:44PM
While I am as pleased as anyone to see (hopefully) the democrats get their comeuppance, this is no time to celebrate. McCain was ahead at this point and would have won if the financial debacle hadn't struck in mid-October. Mid-October is yet to come. Also, in the late 1980s/early 1990s the Sandanistas were considered shoo-ins to win the presidential election just days before it took place. They didn't. P. J. O'Rourke has a masterful account of it. The Republicans need to act as if they are four points behind in every race. Always run through the tape.
wodiej| 9.8.10 @ 2:50PM
off topic....good grief, how long is campaigner/whiner in chief going to talk in Cleveland??
Oldefarte| 9.8.10 @ 2:56PM
The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that the latter are CORRUPT, whereas the former are CORRUPT and RADICAL. Taxpayer-voters need a two step process if they hope to ever regaim control of their government. Step one: Vote AGAINST ALL DEMOCRATS in November. Step two: Vote against all corrupt remaining Republicans who refuse to STOP LISTENING TO THEIR RNC LEADERS AND START LISTIENING TO THEIR LOCAL CONSTITUENTS!!!!!!!!!!
Margie| 9.8.10 @ 3:04PM
Like the old Motowners used to say: "Like it is, like it is!" Odlefarte has nailed it once again!
emo| 9.8.10 @ 4:27PM
Someone should point out that between 2005-06 the GOP won two very very important special elections, OH-5 and CA-50. Yet they lost the congress
jrjr| 9.8.10 @ 4:45PM
With a headline picture of the Newt, Steele of the RNC, and discussions as to Boehner being the Speaker it looks like the Repubs are headed in the wrong direction. Where has Boehner been for the first 9 - 12 months of Hussein's reign? Timid Republicans get nothing. They had better come up with something solid to run on rather than being "against."
WRJonas | 9.8.10 @ 5:18PM
I 'm not quite sure whose ox is being gored here , but put me in the no compromise camp. The problem with compromise is once you accept a half measure you diminish the principle you formerly held.
Sort of like the street walker who keeps selling her " untarnished virtue " over and over.
But , I like visual metaphors and I have this image which keeps showing up on the back of my mind. It is the fearful "tsunami " which liberal democrats are fleeing from that I see; and indeed it is a terrible sight of unbelievable proportions . A massive , towering wave smashing and grinding everything in its path and as the camera of my imagination zooms in on the pile of growing , twisting wreckage at the leading edge I can clearly see the words " democratic party".
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.8.10 @ 5:43PM
I had this e-mail forwarded to me. Please read what move-on.org is saying.
""Republicans and their corporate allies are determined to take over Congress this fall—and we can't let that happen. We've got a plan to stop it—but we need to raise $600,000 this week to get started, which means 48 more donations from people in Houston. Can you chip in $5 today?
Contribute Now
Dear MoveOn member,
It's a perfect storm.
Polls show record levels of voter anger at Washington. Corporate interests are spending $400 million to try and buy Congress for the Republican Party.1 And Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are whipping up a frenzy of right-wing hatred and coded racism.
In short, we're on the verge of losing this election. And if that happens, right-wing Republicans and their corporate benefactors will do everything they can to kill any progressive legislation for the rest of the Obama presidency.
The good news is that we've still got a chance to turn the tide. We've seen before how a massive outpouring of support from grassroots progressives can swing an election—remember what happened in 2008?
It's time to do it again. We've got the pieces in place for an all-hands-on-deck effort over the next two months: We'll mobilize MoveOn's 5 million members to get out the vote and stop the takeover of Congress.
But we need to raise at least $600,000 this week to get started—and that will take 48 more donations from people in Houston. Can you chip in $5?
Michele San Pietro| 9.8.10 @ 5:45PM
I'm sure the Democrats will suffer a heavy defeat like in 1994, since they have raped once again America and the American people. It was really a good idea to publish a picture with Newt Gingrich since, to my mind, he must be the Republican presidential candidate in 2012.
Yosemeti Sam| 9.9.10 @ 2:33AM
" ... Last week, Gallup showed the Republicans ahead by ten points ...."
Personally, I take the Galloping polls with a ton of salt!
BTW - again, do Zogby still do polling?
vik| 9.10.10 @ 11:55AM
Liberals believe they can talk their way out of the impending disaster. Have a look at the way they are cajoling and exhorting their constituency.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....10617.html
Spyder308| 9.12.10 @ 7:22PM
Democrats can't go as low as to accept a philandering hypocrite like Newt as a leader. He calls himself a "conservative intellectual." Sure makes conservatives look bad.