-
Sanford Resurrected in Carolina
April 3, 2013 | 140 comments
-
Bostic and Sanford Battle in Charleston
March 29, 2013 | 16 comments
-
South Carolina Showdown
March 26, 2013 | 39 comments
-
The Liberal Media Lie About CPAC
March 18, 2013 | 35 comments
-
The Hottest Ticket in Town
March 14, 2013 | 28 comments
Campaign Crawlers
The Republican Mandate
The extent of the Party of No’s huge victory in the House — now at 63 seats — has yet to sink in.
Ann Marie Buerkle was outspent by a 5-to-1 margin in her campaign against incumbent Rep. Dan Maffei in New York’s 25th district. Maffei was a phenomenal fundraiser — of his $2.7 million total, the freshman Democrat collected more than $1.2 million from PACs — and the district had voted for Democrats in the past three presidential elections, delivering 56 percent for Barack Obama just two years ago.
When Buerkle first declared her intent to run for the seat, she said, “People looked at me like I was crazy. They said, ‘He’s got so much money. How are you going to beat him?’”
But beat him, she did. Yesterday, after all the absentee ballots had been counted and Buerkle still maintained a 567-vote lead, Maffei conceded. Combined with a win for Blake Farenthold in Texas — where Democrat Rep. Solomon Ortiz finally conceded Monday in the 27th District — Buerkle’s victory brings to 63 the number of House seats gained by Republicans in the mid-term election. That’s the GOP’s biggest net gain in any election since 1938, and gives Republicans 242 House seats — the most they’ve held since 1949. Their majority is bigger by 12 seats than the one captured by Newt Gingrich’s GOP in 1994.
The sheer size of the electoral tsunami that swept Buerkle and scores of other Republicans into Congress has been underplayed by the major media, which have preferred instead to focus on the failure of the GOP to capture a Senate majority. But the electoral math always favored Democrats in this year’s Senate campaign, and Republicans still scored important Senate pickups in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Arkansas, North Dakota and Wisconsin. (Would anyone have bet two years ago that the GOP could defeat Russ Feingold in 2010?) The survival of Harry Reid as Senator Majority Leader — the only good news for Democrats in the mid-terms — was predictably the big story in the liberal press in the immediate aftermath of Election Day. And so the enormous Republican gains in the House have not yet been fully comprehended by most Americans.
Part of the reason for this is that so many races remained undecided on Election Night. By the time most people went to bed on Nov. 2, it was clear that the GOP had recaptured the House majority, but the extent of their victory was not yet known. Even a week after the election, nine contests still remained undecided, and many Democrats delayed conceding in close races. It was not until last Wednesday that Rep. Melissa Bean conceded to Republican Joe Walsh in the 8th District of Illinois, and not until Friday that Rep. Bob Etheridge conceded to Renee Ellmers in North Carolina’s 2nd District. This slow-motion trickle of additional GOP pickups meant that the big victory didn’t produce the kind of jaw-dropping astonishment it should have inspired.
How big was the wave? Consider the example of Republican operative Vince Kreul, 26, who worked for three losing congressional candidates during the 2010 campaign season — first for Rick Barber in Alabama’s 2nd District, then for Les Phillip in Alabama’s 5th District, and then for Kerry Roberts in Tennessee’s 6th District. All three of those candidates lost their primaries, but the GOP candidates who won those primaries (Martha Roby, Mo Brooks and Diane Black, respectively) all won on Nov. 2, capturing seats that had previously been held by Democrats. And Vince Kreul also ended up with a winner, working for the campaign of Morgan Griffith, the Republican who defeated 14-term incumbent Democrat Rick Boucher in Virginia’s 9th District.
The defeat of Boucher, who had kept his rural coal-country district in the Democrat column for 28 years — even surviving the 1994 Republican landslide — was a clear sign of just how deep the GOP wave was. It continued a trend of partisan realignment in the South, defeating long-serving Democrats in districts that had not elected a Republican since Reconstruction. In Florida’s 2nd District, Steve Southerland defeated seven-term incumbent Allen Boyd by a margin of more than 30,000 votes. In South Carolina’s 5th District, Republican Mick Mulvaney won by more than 20,000 votes over 14-term incumbent John Spratt, powerful chairman of the House Budget Committee.
The wave was also a wipeout for the “Blue Dog” Democrats, defeating 28 of 54 members of the moderate coalition, including Indiana’s Barron Hill, who lost the 9th District by a 10-point margin to Republican Todd Young, and Mississippi’s Gene Taylor, a 10-term incumbent who lost the 4th District by 10,000 votes to Steve Palazzo.
Democrats seeking to minimize the extent of their defeat pointed out that most of their losses involved House seats in “swing” districts that had been lost by the GOP in the 2006 and 2008 elections. Maffei, for example, was one of 22 first-term Democrats (out of 26 elected in 2008) to lose re-election. “Republicans won by taking back the very seats we had took from them,” D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton said in a Nov. 11 post-election panel discussion at Georgetown University. True, but the wave also defeated a dozen Democrats who had been in Congress for at least a decade, including several incumbents who had been in office more than 20 years. In Pennsylvania’s 11th District, 13-term Democrat Paul Kanjorski lost by a 10-point margin to Lou Barletta. In Missouri’s 4th District, 17-term Democrat Ike Skelton was beaten by Vicky Hartzler. In Minnesota’s 8th District, 18-term Democrat Jim Oberstar was edged out by Chip Cravaack.
Despite the stunning size of the Republican victory, pundits and pollsters were quick to declare that the election did not represent a “mandate” for the GOP. For example, pollsters quickly produced surveys claiming that a majority of Americans favored preserving the Democratic health-care law. Yet that bill was enacted without a single Republican vote and repealing it was the centerpiece of winning campaigns for scores of GOP challengers like Buerkle, who overcame enormous disadvantages to defeat Maffei.
In the final weeks of her campaign, Buerkle said in an interview yesterday, the incumbent Democrat was reportedly spending nearly a quarter-million dollars a week on TV ads attacking her. “We decided we couldn’t beat him on the money, but we could beat him with the grassroots,” she said of her strategy. “We did 21 parades, 20 town halls, Rotary clubs, chambers of commerce.… This campaign has really been a victory for the people, to show that the people could make a difference.”
Those people did make a difference, and in the process made laughingstocks of pundits who said they couldn’t do it, chief among them E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post.
“It will be very hard for Republicans to take the House if they don’t break the Democrats’ power in the Northeast — and they still have to prove they can do that,” Dionne wrote five weeks before Election Day, in a column that featured this quote from Dan Maffei: “When we do retain the majority… people are going to look at the map and see that the Northeast held.” Dionne predicted: “Absent a Republican wave of historic proportions, [Maffei’s] seat now seems out of the GOP’s reach.”
Unfortunately for Maffei and Dionne, that “Republican wave of historic proportions” came crashing ashore Nov. 2 with enough power to flip six seats in New York into the GOP column. In addition to Buerkle’s hard-fought win in the 25th District, Republicans also captured previously Democrat-held seats in the 13th, 19th, 20th, 24th and 29th districts. New York’s six GOP pickups was the most of any state. Republicans gained five seats in Ohio and Pennsylvania, while adding four seats in both Florida and Illinois. If such widespread victories are not a mandate for House Republicans to oppose the Democrats’ liberal agenda, whatever could be?
Buerkle seems determined to live up to her campaign promises. At a press conference yesterday in Syracuse, a reporter asked whether she needed to “moderate some of [her] positions,” given her narrow margin of victory.
“I don’t think that anyone would ask me to compromise my principles,” Buerkle answered. “I think the consensus vote was we need less government, lower taxes, we need to do what’s right… to get our economy back on course.”
Turning that “consensus” into policy is the Republicans mandate.
About the Author
Robert Stacy McCain is co-author (with Lynn Vincent) of Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party (Nelson Current). He blogs at The Other McCain.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (139) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Robert Stacy McCain
More Articles From Campaign Crawlers
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/11/24/the-republican-mandate
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
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
saleboter| 11.24.10 @ 7:33AM
"Despite the stunning size of the Republican victory, pundits and pollsters were quick to declare that the election did not represent a "mandate" for the GOP"
If it walks, talks and looks like a duck.......
Alan Brooks| 11.24.10 @ 3:36PM
But you will screw it up in '12, just as you have for 2 decades.
a) you dont have Reagan.
b) the WEarsaw Pact is gone.
c) the Right is not united on the current war (a war that will continue for decades.
d) the reason the Tea Party is so strong is that the GOP is flaccid-- they are rightwing welfare statists.
Guaranteed you will botch it somehow; you'll find a way.
DaveS| 11.24.10 @ 4:15PM
Over several weeks, your contempt for the results has been manifest. Losers, weepers.
Colin Foy| 11.24.10 @ 4:40PM
Botching the Botchers: Brooks, you are one scared libtard! Once the wave of indictments proves that Obama is a traitor and a fraud and that the demarxistRats have perpetrated the biggest election fraud in this nations history you'll really have something to cry about.
Nancy Lugosi isn't just clinging to power, she's on a CYA mission of epic proportions and you know it.
Alan Brooks| 11.24.10 @ 5:16PM
But still, like a clueless elephant the GOP will trip itself up; it has done so CONSISTENTLY since 1990, with a brief break in the second half of the '90s.
You are as an elephant returning to its own vomit.
DaveS| 11.24.10 @ 5:18PM
Did you wag your finger at Rush when he said he hoped hopey-changey failed? If so, we wag at you.
Alan Brooks| 11.26.10 @ 6:42PM
"Did you wag your finger at Rush when he said he hoped hopey-changey failed? If so, we wag at you."
No, he was obviously correct as he was in 1994.
But Rush was wrong in his saying Bush would do something about big govt. Bush did NOT.
Even Rush can look into the wrong crystal ball sometimes.
Jack Bauer| 11.26.10 @ 2:31PM
We have our own E.J. Dionne-Brookes pontificating with Nostrodamus predictions.
"It will be very hard for Republicans to take the House if they don't break the Democrats' power in the Northeast -- and they still have to prove they can do that," Dionne wrote five weeks before Election Day, in a column that featured this quote from Dan Maffei: "When we do retain the majority… people are going to look at the map and see that the Northeast held." Dionne predicted: "Absent a Republican wave of historic proportions, [Maffei's] seat now seems out of the GOP's reach."
Keep 'em coming boy.
Dawg| 11.26.10 @ 3:08PM
My, my Alan, you just can't get over the fact that the liberals took a beating, and rightfully so after they tried to run America off a cliff on a runaway progressive out of control spending spree.....
I thought the serpent head James Carville said the democrats would rule for 40 years and the Repub's were finished....Yep, he was close,
only about 38 years off, take a few years here and there while gloating in front of us unwashed Americans....But is this not the only thing the
libturds are good for......
Zilla | 11.24.10 @ 5:56PM
We may not have Reagan, but we DO have Congressman-elect Col. Allen West and, mark my words, he IS a rising star and will be a force to be reckoned with. If given the chance, he could obliterate Obama in 2012 for POTUS.
Oldefarte| 11.25.10 @ 11:07AM
test
Oldefarte| 11.25.10 @ 11:18AM
No it will not be SCREWED UP, for the reason that now the Republican Party is the only SANE alternative. Democrats represent the indigents [along with the Hollywood dope dealers masquerading as movie actors, the acedemic professors brainwashing their students, and the government union employees] sucking off of the government teat, which is supplied/paid for/funded etc by the American taxpayers. Republicans formerly representated by the wealthy country club class are now joined by the middle class working three jobs to support families and paying their enforced taxes to their dictatorial government who were formerly floating independents. Nah, they won't screw it up, since [thanks to Obama, Pilosi, Reid, Schumer, Rangel, Conyers, Waters,etc], everyone in the latter groupings finally realized the urgency of the radical Democrats' now total effort at destroying this country, and will finalize their 11/2/10 effort to rid themselves of this extremist group now dictating from DC!!!!!!
pete| 11.25.10 @ 4:49PM
Alan,
watched you from afar for a while. wipe the liberal kool aid moustache pal. oopss! missed a whole!
Simon Templar| 11.26.10 @ 12:23AM
Allan...You should be, as a good socialist, less concerned about the Republican party screwing up and more concerned about the real threat..a growing threat thats getting bigger every day that passes. You know what it is! It scaring the hell out of you. Each day your waking up and realizing that more and more Americans are waking up to the fact that the democratic party has been taken over by socialist and commmunist..that the old Truman liberal is long gone...that they made a terrrible mistake in 2008 and were deceived. Moreover, they are no longer naive, silent, and uninvolved. Each day more and more people are learning about what and who you are. Reading new books, educating themselves not only about the true history of their country but the true history of Leftism. More copies of the constitution have been bought this year than in the last 30 years. More each day are joining the Tea Party and marching in defense of traditional founding principles and values. More are defending American exceptionalism and seeing through the charade of the progressive elite in Washington. They are turning away from the MSM. This is the real power and the real threat not the GOP. This is what we mean when we say we are taking back our country. It is not going to stop. So, you should be shaking in your boots!
megapotamus| 11.26.10 @ 12:02PM
Couldn't agree more. A half-committment to the principles of liberty will and should doom the new Rep majority to ignomy and defeat. Yes, we lack a Reagan but I'm wondering when it was that Reagan became an iconic figure of probity for you? Recently? Well, whatever. Reagan's power and accomplishments were a reflection of common wisdom and common will and he would tell anyone that who will listen. So yes, there is no such thing, really as a "mandate" as those who write history would have it. There are certain people elected to Constitutional offices with certain powers and (more importantly) certain restrictions. Abuse of these is what destroys legitimacy as the Obies have found. Actually it wouldn't be too glib to describe socialist impulses as nothing more than abuse of power and limited government principles. So I find it quite refreshing and heartening that our maladies are so obvious now that even a doctrinaire Lefty sees "rigthwing statists" in the RINO herd and finds them dangerous. Of course the Leftwing Statists are all that exists in the Dem party. I find these equally objectionable, at least.
Oldefarte| 11.26.10 @ 12:40PM
Great comments, all [except Eric's right hand man, AB]. Being also a huge Reagan fan, I do believe however that there is brighter days ahead for us in the young gun, conservative Republicans now on the horizon. I think that in possibly 2012 and beyond, we'll all be singing %%%%HAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN%%%%
Ned Ferguson| 11.27.10 @ 6:24PM
Wow. Another penis allusion. You leftists are such wits, and intellectual to boot.
Gregory Jackson| 11.25.10 @ 9:09AM
Be they? "New York's six GOP pickups was the most of any state." The subject is plural, so the verb is plural.
martin j smith| 11.24.10 @ 7:36AM
It was NOT A REPUBLICAN MANDATE, IT WAS A VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE AND A REPUDIATION OF LEFT SOCIALISM> If there is any other mandate, it is to bring our country BACK from the brink to some semblance of what a VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS recognize as America. But what that mandate is ? I would wager conservative economics and support for American exceptionalism. beyond that, who knows
JimH| 11.24.10 @ 8:13AM
Ditto. And do not let the GOP forget it.
Son Of Sam| 11.24.10 @ 8:32AM
a belief in American exceptionalism and conservative economics -- along with with beliefs in the right to life and a strong defense posture -- are the very reasons I became a Republican in the first place. There was no room for me in the Other Party, the party of rewarding deadbeats and supporting America getting gangbanged at the UN. The GOP had better damned well remember that, and they certainly better stop nominating RINO country club losers like Ford, "Poppy" Bush, Bob Dole and Mitt Romney.
Zilla | 11.24.10 @ 5:59PM
I'm with you guys, the Republicans were just the default benefactors of America's outrage at the hard left turn this country has taken, if the GOP fails to do right by us, we WILL replace ALL of their incumbents in the next elections.
trish| 11.25.10 @ 12:20AM
Bingo Zilla. As per usual, the left played its hand and showed its ugly face too soon. They can't help charging after power. If the default benefactors don't carry out the mandate of conservatism, they will be a goner party as well. I knew that we were on the verge of an awakening of epic proportions when I attended the first Tea Party rally in DC on 9/12/09. Seeing every avenue and artery plugged with people as far as the eye could see was the evidence. This administration's neomarxism may have been the best thing that could have happened for the citizens to wake up.
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.24.10 @ 7:57AM
Robert,
Thank you.
Folks,
I got a lead on an important web-site here yesterday...from one of you...but no link.
here is the link www.palintv.com
There are several recent interviews with Sarah I hope each of you will see, and the site will probably be tracking her appearances going forward. I have book-marked it.
I digress just a little to show you that Sarah has become the conservative Reps' highest profile rooter and "atta-boy" giver.
She gonna' make a LOT of congressional friends over the next year....and uh, that generates primary delegates.
If you want to see a candid lady...be sure to watch the Hannity interview above.
I think I can already see her campaign strategy. She is going to be speaking out for a whole bunch of congress critters and hopefuls over the next two years. I expect her to be on stage with them....a lot.
Son Of Sam| 11.24.10 @ 8:39AM
Say there Texican, do you mean to see that she helped get conservative Republicans elected all over the country, and that will help her win the Presidency? That she's a real Reagan Republican: the kind that stays true to the conservstive message AND wins elections?
Who'd a thunk it?
PS The very fact that all the Kool Aid chugging libs hate her so much should give the game away: they hate here because they fear her the way baloney fears the grinder
Oldefarte| 11.25.10 @ 11:25AM
Ken and others: A word of caution that I have recently had a rash of viruses attacking/shutting down my computer. My computer repair company told me that these viruses COULD be the work of political operatives trying to dismantle the computers of those whom they disagree with. I have recently been google searching new stories etc, and that apparently is where my computer became infected. They told me to just stay on the well know web sites and stay away from the strange or less well known ones. Just be careful, okay?????
Doctor Right| 11.24.10 @ 7:58AM
And let's not forget...As Obama continues his inexorable slide towards American-style socialism with Harry Reid as his idiot sidekick, more and more of the "43", those right-of-center Democrats who voted against Pelosi in the recent leadership struggle will begin to feel increasingly alienated from their Party.
2012 may be even worse for the Dems than 2010. In that regard, how many of the "43" will switch parties before the Titanic sinks?
Michael L. Hauschild| 11.24.10 @ 8:31AM
Very perceptive DR, but what many are failing to recognize is that McCain's premise of magnitude could even extend into the bastion of stationary inertia, the Senate. It could come to pass as the implications of Obama's first two years of socialism (most notably if the failure to extend the Bush tax policy occurs) that the Upper Legislative Chamber could flip to the Republicans with defections such as Lieberman or Nelson.
By the way, I have already received several mailings of the "don't worry be happy" nature stating that legislator author magnificently championed the "earmarks ban" BUT, (and this is a very big but), don't worry the cash flow will continue in the form of "grants."
John Navratil| 11.24.10 @ 10:57AM
Mr. Hauschild,
You are on to something with the earmarks/grants observation. My suspicion is that before the fat lady sings there will be a new appreciation for earmarks. In fact, I suggest that ALL spending should be earmarks and that the appropriators, not the bureaucrats, should be all but sign the checks. The alternative is to give the responsibility to Obama's minions who will surely starve parts of each agency to ensure full funding for Obamacare.
What we really need to do is define what an earmark is. The term often means some bad bit of port slipped into a bill to a favoured constituent without being debated. But, it also means specific funding requests for weapons systems, e.g.
Properly debated, this sort of targeted spending is not evil. But at least one of the "earmark ban" proposals would eliminate it. We must be careful for what we wish.
Ted| 11.24.10 @ 9:09AM
Some of those 43 in the House may flip, but I doubt Nelson and Lieberman will. Manchin might. West Virginia is Democrat for historic reasons, as most of the South used to be. But it's a conservative state, and the Democratic Party is decidedly not conservative.
Doctor Right hit the nail on the head as far as the Senate goes. 2012 will be a disaster for them if things (economy, health care, etc) are about the same. As the author notes, the only reason conservatives did not capture the Senate is because there just weren't enough Dems up this year.
loulou| 11.24.10 @ 11:53AM
West Virginians may be culturally conservative but the whole state is on the dole, thanks to Robert Byrd. They've never relied on themselves but rather on gubmint largesse. A lot of them are dependent. On welfare and oxycontin.
Quartermaster| 11.24.10 @ 1:50PM
WV has been a very business unfriendly state. They have driven most industry out of the state by their anti-business attitudes. Byrd and his sidekick Rockefeller, have set WV on a path of dependency and the state has been paying a terrible price for it.
loulou| 11.24.10 @ 4:06PM
Ironically, Manchin's welcome sign says, "Open for Business." Right.
Too bad-- a proud people were brought down by Byrd and Rockefeller, two predators.
Mark| 11.24.10 @ 1:17PM
If any of the 43 are punished for their "revolt", they may switch parties, especially Heath Shuler who led the charge.
Colin Foy| 11.24.10 @ 5:06PM
Doc, I couldn't agree more. If Heath Schuler had any brains he and his fellow Blue Fraud Dogs (BFD's as I call them), would switch parties and leave Mz. Lugosi to writhe in liberal D.C. purgatory.
It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that the BFD's were nothing more than pawns for the hard core commies in the demarxistRat party. Once they served their purpose they were moved off the chess board.
You'd think the remaing BFD's would read the tea leaves for 12'. However, that may be assigning them more intelligence than they actually have. Cheers!
Guitanguran| 11.24.10 @ 8:40AM
Good job, Mr McC. Your prose in Amspec cleans up pretty good.
Rmm| 11.24.10 @ 9:07AM
Even though the party of BIG government liberal elites has been discredited by the voters, Pelosi and her ilk refuse to acknowledge this fact. We want a new direction, one that dispences with the pixie dust and fairy tales, one where our leaders listen to the electorate. If not Zero and his cronies will be out come 2012.
Clinton Lovell| 11.24.10 @ 9:19AM
The only people it has yet to sink in for is the Establishment Republicans. Everyone else has gotten the message but Ronald McDonald McConnell & Company.
AnyoneButNewt| 11.24.10 @ 9:53AM
We can't afford to get cocky. Everyone isn't all of a sudden in love with Republicans. They have a lot of work to do to show they are truly the party of fiscal responsibility and limited government.
Bill A | 11.24.10 @ 10:04AM
This election was most definitely not a mandate for Republicans as much as a repudiation of the current direction of government policies. The advent of the Tea Party movement is merely a reflection of the disatisfaction of many Americans with both major parties. The word
mandate has become one of the most abused words in this country.
DaveS| 11.24.10 @ 5:31PM
Mandate is in the eyes of the winners. It was a mandate. Only losers say it's not a mandate when the pickup is this historically large.
Louis Jenkins| 11.24.10 @ 10:23AM
For a group, the Senators have become the Democrat's powerhouse. If the tide had changed directions the HRs would have been the same. There just weren't that many candidates up for re-election in the Senate. HRs is up for re-election every two years. Quite a difference and the Democrats will take any port in a storm. However, if the pressure is kept up in 2012 we will see a change in the make-up of the Senate, provided the HRs do what they've said, smaller government, less spending, lighter taxes, etc. I am enthused by the gains, but be even more so come 2012 when the golden child's head is on the chopping block. We've still got a lot of work to do.
MikeD| 11.24.10 @ 2:51PM
There's actually a silver lining to not taking the Senate. First, let Harry Reid play goalie to stop anything coming from the House that might stop barry the muslim. See how THAT plays with the Demoncraps in 2012. Then, remember that the House holds the purse strings; and the Republicans had better keep that purse slammed shut until barry and his thugs scream. Finally, of the 33 seats up in two years, 21 have to be defended by demoncraps, several of which, like chief briber Nelson of Nebraska, can't even show their faces in their own states. Yes, they are THAT despised. Barring some seismic event, or barry the muslim just trying to pull off a coup d'etat; the Demoncraps will lose somewhere between 8 and 19 seats in two years. With only a handful of Republicans either contemplating retirement or in difficult shape for being 'outed' as RINOs, the net gain could be between 12 and 16 seats. Let's see...47 plus 12 sounds almost like a filibusterproof Senate. Just one thing: The GOP had better remember what happened the last time a party had 60 seats; and how they stole, lied, and cheated to get them. Specifically, Al (The P.O.S) Franken should be thrown out and then arrested for fraud, theft, and insanity.
Redstateboy| 11.24.10 @ 10:52AM
One of the sweetest aspects of this triumph besides having the House Gavel ripped from those rat claws of Nazi Pelosi is she now having to fly commercial.
DaveS| 11.24.10 @ 5:20PM
You'd think so; don't count on it. Obamacare was passed with exceptions and exceptions continue to appear. Same here.
Al Adab| 11.24.10 @ 10:56AM
The width and depth of this victory is remarkable. However, the GOP needs to understand that the repudiation of the Left was not a vote of confidence in the Republicans. The Conservative movement is ascendant but on probation. The GOP failed us before, they must not fail us again.
loulou| 11.24.10 @ 11:55AM
Amen.
McConnell is not to be trusted and needs to be watched carefully.
martin j smith| 11.24.10 @ 10:57AM
Speaking of mandates, as Obama and his geniuses in the DHS and TSA and DOJ show more and more stupidity--the mandate will be FOR A COMPETENT GOVERNMENT-- and that means NOT LEFT BUT CENTER RIGHT !!!!!!!!!!!!Oh--and let us not forget O's brilliant foreign policy. That too.
Quartermaster| 11.24.10 @ 1:53PM
It would be better if the Pubbies were where the founders stand. But, then, that would make them extreme right-wing, and we can't have that can we?
Denio| 11.24.10 @ 11:32AM
The GOP had better support the person that the people choose in the primaries... not like what happened in Delaware.... That really teed me off.
I would love to see a president Palin just to watch the lib's heads explode, but someone else just as conservative would be OK...
Rich Fisher| 11.24.10 @ 12:54PM
Denio,
You are so right about Delaware. The reason we didn't win back the Senate by taking Delaware and Nevada was because the RINO's who always expect the conservative Republicans to compromise and vote for a liberal Republican didn't return the favor. That shows their true colors. They would rather go down in defeat than support a conservative Republican. Yet, if conservatives do the same thing the RINO's are absolutely outraged. We need to back whoever wins the Republican Primaries and then hold their feet to the fire when elected.
Oldefarte| 11.24.10 @ 11:34AM
Great editorial and great comments. There's an interesting blog on DC about the possibility of eventually passing a REPEAL AMENDMENT to the constitution, which would appear to provide more power to the states in twarting the federal government's legislation [ie healthcare,etc]. I'm not familiar with this movement, so if TAS's writers or any of you could provide future explanations of this possible amendment, I think it would be enlightening to myself and others as well!!!!!!!!!!
Shannon| 11.24.10 @ 11:51AM
The only ace in the hole that the media has is to underplay the Republican's ... and it's getting old. But the only ace that the Republicans have is playing nice...and that's getting old too. Republicans need to stop playing nice and begin to understand that the Democrats play dirty and they play to win. Check out www.takingonissues.com
Ted R.| 11.24.10 @ 12:31PM
All the midterms showed was that the public is in denial about where we are as a country, and what we need to do.
The public faces hard choices in the coming years. We will need to cut spending AND raise taxes.
Obamacare's hope is that the mandate, and increasing efficiencies in delivery of health care services, will help rein in costs. We don't know yet if it will work. (The Republican move to repeal, on the other hand, will never be popular - you Cons convincing yourselves that it WOULD be, is just another way you have of deluding yourselves.)
You Cons have badly misread the electorate. There is no broad support for your small-government agenda. If people are forced to choose between higher taxes for the rich or cuts in their well-deserved benefits, what do you think they're going to choose?
The Republicans won by using their base to gin up anger and fear in an underinformed and vacillating electorate. Your success this year is going to be a passing phenomenon.
Many terminal patients, before they finally croak, have a brief rally before they finally succumb. You Cons got your rally this month; but your ideas are finished.
Rich Fisher| 11.24.10 @ 1:02PM
Ted, you are still in denial about the Reagan years. You need to go look at the facts as provided by the government for Revenue during those years. The tax cuts doubled the revenue in 8 years which means that if spending had been held steady and only been raised at the rate of inflation every other year, for the inflation rate of the prior year, we would be out of debt now. No cuts would have been necessary. Cut taxes, which encourages economic growth, and keep spending level and we will be out of this mess in less than 10 years. It never was about the tax cuts not bringing in enough money for Reagan it was about spending increasing as Revenues did. We don't allow Dem talking points to go unchallenged here and you need to do your research or be prepared to be embarrased. As Renaldos Maximus said, "you may be entitled to your opinion but not your own facts".
Ted R. | 11.24.10 @ 1:48PM
Did revenue increase during the Reagan years? I don't doubt that it did; after periods of low growth, especially a prolonged period like the 1970's (capped off by the (then) worst recession since the Depression), the economy usually comes back strong. When you have strong growth, revenues increase. No surprise there.
Was it the tax cuts which produced the growth? I very much doubt it. More important was cutting regulation and reining in inflation, crucial steps that were taken first *ahem* in the Carter administration.
Anyway, the point is not whether tax cuts promote growth, but whether they promote growth enough to offset the decline in revenue. I frankly don't give a damn about the "woulda coulda shoulda" arguments about spending during the Reagan administration; whether he was too committed to defense build-up to go to war with the Democrats over the budget, or whether he (very likely correctly) suspected that the public had far less appetite for spending cuts than tax breaks, the fact is that the deficit first exploded under Reagan-era fiscal policies. That you Cons just gloss over that is one of the bright shining proofs of your hypocrisy.
John Navratil| 11.24.10 @ 2:40PM
Ted R.
Review the "Impoundment Control Act of 1974". This is where the Congress asserted that if they appropriate it, the executive must spend it. Prior to this the President would simply not quite get around to spending everything Congress authorized and yearly budget deficits hovered in the 1/2% range.
The Congress felt that Nixon had abused this privilege and enacted this. Since then the deficits ballooned. A recent study shows that Congress spends $1.17 for every $1.00 in revenue (see Stephen Moore in the Wall Street Journal).
You may recall that Reagan presented a balanced budget to Congress every year which Tip O'Neill declared dead on arrival.
We know who has the purse. And we know they are spending too much money. There need not be ANY tax increases.
Ted R.| 11.24.10 @ 2:58PM
So you're telling me that because of this act that was passed in the mid-70's, it is what makes the difference between the manageable deficits before the 80's, and the staggering deficits in the 80's and beyond...? Sounds like another typically conspiratorial one-factor explanation. Next thing you'll be saying is, that the country that "controls magnetism controls the universe."
I'm much less impressed with the budgets Reagan sent, than the number of times he vetoed a budget. Got any stats on that?
We are all agreed that we are on an unsustainable fiscal course. The question is, will the current tax rates (let alone further tax cuts) do anything to help. And I am telling you, No. And if you're really concerned about the deficit, you need to do the math. Your "remedy" is only going to lead to a repeat of the Bush years.
Ray| 11.24.10 @ 3:07PM
"I'm much less impressed with the budgets Reagan sent, than the number of times he vetoed a budget. Got any stats on that?"
Well, since you seem to be the expert about that, maybe YOU should supply those stats.
John Navratil| 11.24.10 @ 4:45PM
Ted R.
Yes, that it exactly what I am saying. One year of 3% deficit doesn't kill the goose. Two doesn't make it any better. But year after year begins to take its toll.
Please, you do not need to assert that if I say something with which you disagree that the next thing I will say is something meaningless.
Reagan vetoed several appropriations bills; H.J.Res 357 "Continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1982", H.R. 5922 "Urgent Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1982", H.R. 6682 "Urgent Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1982", H.R. 6863 "Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1982" (overridden 60-30 by Senate). Neither Carter before, or George H. W. Bush vetoed any appropriations bills.
Clinton, famously presided over a shutdown of the government over Gingrich's actions to prevent increasing the debt ceiling. While he vetoed some appropriations for agencies, he vetoed no major spending bills. "W" was equally famous for vetoing nothing in his first term. His first veto was for stem cell research funding in 2006.
In conclusion, if there was anyone vetoing appropriations bills, it was Reagan.
(source: http://www.senate.gov/referenc.....es_vrd.htm)
As to your final point, I refer you to the Laffer Curve. If you wish to assert that we are on the side where increases in tax rates translate to increases in revenue, we will have to disagree. However, history has shown that we have lowered tax rates many times in recent history with the effect of revenue increases. One thing is certain, it is much easier to raise rates than to cut spending. So much easier that spending is now at is highest percent of GDP in history. We have played the monetary games to the point of exhaustion. The only thing left is fiscal. Let's try something new and interesting, shall we? Let's just cut the spending.
Ted R.| 11.24.10 @ 5:19PM
Mr. Navratil,
So you are claiming that the passage of the Impoundment Act provides the prevailing explanation for why deficits exploded in the 80's? You are claiming that, let's say from the time of Truman till Carter, presidents from both parties took it upon themselves to save taxpayer dollars by deliberately witholding funds for bills that Congress passed and that they had signed - ? You are claiming that the savings amounted, on a regular basis, to 1-and-one-half percent of GDP! Forgive me if I wonder aloud what you've been smoking.
As far as concerns the negative incentive effects of tax rates, I absolutely think we are on the left side of the curve. Nearly ten years of Bush tax cuts left us with an economy that is mired in debt, and lagging in innovation. And for all that, income inequality is a great as it's been since the 20's. As a country, we are not allocating resources intelligently.
And all you suggest, is that we double down on the Bush formula - cut taxes and consumer protections some more! As for spending cuts, you've offered nothing but a wing and a prayer. I guarantee that the new Congress is going to address taxes before they address spending. And currently, the only idea you have for "spending cuts" is to repeal Obamacare. Like I said in my post above, good luck with that!
No, Reaganomics has failed and today we stand amidst the wreckage. Sadly, the ideas that drove Reaganomics are now only beginning to get popular currency... and they sure SOUND good - who doesn't like a free lunch! People have yet to cotton on to the role of those ideas in the current crisis; but the truth will out, and the people will catch up. The contemporary Republican resurgence is your last gasp.
John Navratil| 11.24.10 @ 5:47PM
Thank you for recapitulating your position. I believe I've got it.
No, I'm not saying that the savings from impoundment was one to one-and-half percent. It is more like two-and-half to three. The dynamic changed when the Congress could force spending.
Today, it's an Upmann Vintage Cameroon that I am smoking.
Finally you end with you assessment that you are free to hold. You state with certainty that "the contemporary Republican resurgence is your last gasp." I do not predict the future, but that isn't the way I'm prepared to bet and I sincerely hope you are quite wrong.
Notice that nothing in this post was an opinion.
Ted R.| 11.24.10 @ 6:18PM
"No, I'm not saying that the savings from impoundment was one to one-and-half percent. It is more like two-and-half to three. The dynamic changed when the Congress could force spending."
That sure sounds like an opinion to me. A real Snuffelupagus of an opinion. Can you direct me to what you read that makes you think it a "fact"?
John Navratil| 11.24.10 @ 6:45PM
I could, but as this conversation is so one-sided in the research department, I'll leave this as an exercise for the reader.
HINT: Look for year over year deficits as a percent of GDP leading up to and after the year 1974. You will find .5% jumping to 3%.
Also, this topic was first covered by the Wall Street Journal in the mid 80's.
Yosemeti Sam| 11.24.10 @ 1:03PM
In succinct words a la Al Bundy - Blah Blah!
Moreover - Blah Blah!
Did I mention - Blah Blah?
Finally, to BHO and his hangnail Leftoids - Blah Blah!
And yet to PEN1 ( Leftoid media) - Blah Blah!
BLAH!
Ted R.| 11.24.10 @ 1:51PM
And here we have cardinal evidence that the Cons are the party of dunces.
Ray| 11.24.10 @ 3:13PM
And here we have cardinal evidence that YOU are a dunce yourself as there is no such thing as a "Cons" party. There's a Constitution Party, but there's no such thing as a "Cons" party.
In the future it maybe be beneficial to your "logical" arguments is you apply actually LOGICAL terms, use actual, logical DESCRIPTIONS, in your "logical" arguments about someone's apparent level of "logic."
Dollface| 11.24.10 @ 5:20PM
Isn't the cons party the democrats since they're the ones always agitating to let convicted felons vote, even in prison?
Peter McGrath| 11.24.10 @ 1:05PM
The electorate is more than willing to accept cuts in so-called "benefits." Even the poor are beginning to understand the dead-end they face if they rely on anyone other than themselves, and their God, to survive and prosper. The Left never seems even to want to comprehend this basic truth. Government solutions create far more problems than they solve. Simple-minded liberals (such as yourself, apparently), who support leftist elitists who line their pockets by making promises that no human should ever make, fail to understand the lethality of their good intentions. Liberal-socialism kills.
Ted R.| 11.24.10 @ 1:54PM
"The electorate is more willing to accept cuts in so-called 'benefits.'"
I'll take that bet! Call your representative: tell him to call a press conference and read VERBATIM what you've just written here. Please, do it. It would be a public service.
John Navratil| 11.24.10 @ 5:04PM
Are you not seeing what Mr. McGrath is saying is happening? Apparently not. People have been saying, for years, that Social Security will not be there for them (I know I have) and are looking at the growth of entitlements programs. The "Tea Party" is focused on the proposition with the result that the largest swing of House seats since 1938 occurred, this month.
Ted R.| 11.24.10 @ 6:43PM
Mr. Navratil,
People voicing the conventional wisdom, and being willing to follow out its implications (if the conventional wisdom is after all true), are two very different things.
If you are informed, you know that the real looming liability problem is Medicare, not Social Security. Right now, Social Security can be preserved, albeit with some marginal reduction in benefits (for the well-off, probably) by some combination of raising the retirement age, increases in payroll taxes, and drawing back on indexing benefits to inflation. This will not be easy, politically - but nowhere near as difficult as trying to change the program wholesale.
Medicare's prospective liabilities are another matter. They are a core part of the reason that the Democrats have been pushing for an overhaul. Whether or not you choose to believe it, part of the whole rationale for Obamacare is to try and curb those future costs.
The Republicans, with their (temporarily) enthused party base, do not have the political capital to repeal and replace Obamacare. The public does not trust Republicans (much less minimal-staters like the Tea Partiers) on this issue, and with good reason.
Anyway, what I am DEFINITELY looking forward to, is the Republicans' proposals for cutting spending. That should be good entertainment - especially with all the naive Tea Partiers in the mix.
Don't let it be said that the only idea the Libs have for improving the budget picture, is raising taxes - I'm all for cutting the DHS wholesale, for starters. We should also eliminate all farm subsidies. And of course an immediate reduction of our military budget by a third, would help us tremendously. Probably we need to reform Social Security Disability, too - I am under the impression that the program is overextended.
But at any rate, I make my predictions without fear or favor; all it takes are a look at the inevitable trend-lines, and a modicum of knowledge of human nature. One thing I am sure of: the leitmotif of historical interpretation of the years 1980-2010, will be liberal fecklessness and conservative hypocrisy.
Nite| 11.27.10 @ 10:59PM
I don't think you have to worry, Democrats are taking $500 billion out of Medicare and spending it elsewhere, which is just going to make the situation worse Dr. Donald Berwick, one of Obama's unconfirmed Czars, is currently putting plans into play to start rationing Medicare for seniors. If another huge physcian and hospital rate cuts go into effect, then seniors can't find physicians to provide care. It is hard now to find anyone who will take Medicare. So just wait for 2-3 years and seniors will simply start dying due to lack of care. Just like in England, which Dr. Berwick admires. We owe all of these wonderful things to liberals and of course Obama.
Martin Treptow| 11.24.10 @ 1:16PM
So, the solution is to "tax the Rich" and "cut spending"?
Which Democrat politician is going to do the latter?
And you're going to reverse and end Federal deficit spending simply by increasing taxes on the Rich? How many rich people do you think there are in the U.S.? Or do you plan on re-defining "Rich"?
And what do you plan to do about the fact that, every time the Federal Government raises taxes on anyone, actual tax receipts decrease?
It's the same thing every time, y'all Liberals raise taxes and regulations, stifle business, increase the unemployment rate (see Carter, James Earl) and then someone comes along and finally realizes that the only way out is reduce the tax RATES to grow the economy!
How many times does History have to repeat itself before you learn?
Nah... on second thought, let's try it your way: Let's cut spending AND raise taxes (cut what? cut where? and raise taxes on who?)
That'll fix it.
Troll.
Fail.
Cheers!
WPS | 11.24.10 @ 6:18PM
What are 'well deserved benefits'? Who benefits from the money stolen by the govt from the people?
Oldefarte| 11.25.10 @ 11:35AM
Ted, Obviously you're either the president's or the attorney general's lackies blogging from your cubicle at the US Dept of Justice in opposition to the voters of 11/2/10. Wake up, moron, your disguised EXCREMENT has now been exposed for the radical welfare that it is. It's not healthcare, it's welfare for the indigents at the expense of the taxpayers [which is destroying Medicare and health insurance in general; and whose purpose was to provide coverage to the 30 million previously uninsured indigents]. Your stimulus was welfare also, as its purpose was to maintain government jobs for unionized teachers and state/local employees. Your mantra of big government is over, finished, dead, and the sooner you morons realize that your gig is up the better!!!!
George True| 11.24.10 @ 12:52PM
Hi Ted! Welcome to TAS. Since you seem to be new here, let me make a friendly suggestion. Whenever lefties comes here and spout the typical leftist talking points without offering a shred of evidence to back them up, they usually get skewered by the commenters here, and rightfully so.
I would therefore advise you to engage in a little introspection. For starters, why would you accept all of the previously mentioned talking points as truth, when there exists an overwhelming mountain of incontrovertible evidence that proves them wrong? Perhaps you just accepted them in good faith, without knowing any better. In future, you might want to do your own research in order to discover that which is actually true, regardless where it may lead you, and regardless what ideology you may have to discard as a result.
If you really believe what you spout, then back it up with hard evidence. If you cannot do so, then you are not espousing truth, you are merely expressing an opinion not based in fact or reality.
Ted R.| 11.24.10 @ 2:05PM
I appreciate the advice. The evidence that I've looked at shows that the deficit exploded immediately after the passage of Reagan's tax cuts in his first term. The evidence is that government deficits shrank after Clinton's tax increase in his first term. Now, I'm sure that the cause-and-effect here is relatively complicated - but, if we're going to "discover that which is actually true, regardless of where it may lead you, and regardless of what ideology you may have to discard as a result," attending to these two facts would be a good start. Together, hey provide strong prima facie evidence against supply-side economics.
Too much of the economic growth that the nation has experienced since the Reagan era has been deficit-and-speculation fueled. We are now living the reckoning. And all the medicine you have to offer as a remedy, is the same old quack tonic that got us sick.
John Navratil| 11.24.10 @ 3:02PM
Ted R.
In Reagan's first term the Congress was, and had been for thirty years or so, by the Democrats. That and the 1974 Impoundment Act (see above) led to the deficits.
In Clinton's administration, the Congress was held by the Republicans. Admittedly they have screwed the brand since then, but you might recall that Bush-I passed what was then the largest tax increase in the history of the nation (that's when I split with the Republicans) and the deficits continued. Democrat Congress, again!
Ted R.| 11.24.10 @ 3:27PM
The "Impoundment Act," again. Sorry guy, but I've done my share of study about recent economic history, and I have never heard of that one being cited as even a factor in the Reagan-era deficits.
The bottom line is: Reagan got his tax cuts - and his preferred spending increases (including much wasteful military spending) - and presided over a massive increase in our national debt.
In the 90's, George Bush I's tax increase helped to drive down the rate of the increase in the debt; it is widely cited as a factor in improving market confidence and setting the stage for the 90's boom.
Yes, Republican control of Congress likely prevented the surpluses from the dot-com boom (taxed at the increased Clinton rates) from being spent away. Of course, when the Republicans got the presidency, it was another story when it came to spending. How Con-VEN-ient...
John Navratil| 11.24.10 @ 5:14PM
Just because you have not heard the argument made doesn't mean it hasn't been. I just made it. Refute it. All you have to do is argue that (1) the deficit rise is not coincident with the Act or (2) it's mere coincidence but is not correlated. Please do.
Then remind yourself that the authority to spend lies completely and entirely with the Congress of the U.S. Please make the argument that disproves the proposition that deficits go up when Democrats control the purse strings and go down when Republicans do.
I'm quite prepared to grant the Republicans failure in this last decade, but I suspect to will find the Pelosi House has put those shameful bastards to shame, indeed.
Basically, what I'm asking is for something more than your opinion. A few facts that we can argue about, please.
Ted R.| 11.24.10 @ 8:11PM
Actually, you haven't made an argument. You've put forward a thesis - one that is prima facie highly dubious. I know what an argument that defends your thesis would look like - and it would not fit properly in the confines of a board post. I asked you for something to read to dilate on your thesis - and now you're being coy. C'mon, man. I've read my fair share from the opinion journals, I've studied a little about recent American economic history, right and left - and I've never heard of your one-factor "Impoundment Act" explanation. It is simply incumbent on you to bring more, if you expect me to take you seriously.
John Navratil| 11.25.10 @ 9:13AM
So now we go from arguing the point to arguing about how to argue the point. Of course it is a thesis. Just as Relativity remains a theory. Why, because there is no control and no way to determine, definitively, causality.
So there it is. I say the Congress' taking away the power of impoundment led to greater deficits and you say that is "highly dubious". I give you data and you say show me more. You say that you've studied your fair share of opinion journals and read recent American economic history as if that give your opinions credibility - I studied economics - whoop-dee-do.
Yet I am being coy and must bring more to have you take me seriously? I think you have it backwards.
Oldefarte| 11.25.10 @ 11:43AM
No MORON, the defecit/debt began during Kennedy/Johnson's GREAT SOCIETY welfare explosion by their liberal governmental programs [and was enhanced by the 1977 CRA providing housing welfare to indigents; and by BARNEY FUDD and company facilitation with his boyfriend's HUD connections]. Reagan's only problem was that he was unable to lower governmental spending after initiating his tax cuts due to the typical Democrats' welfare providing idiots in congress. For you and others too stupid to understand economics, if the new congress is eventually able to substantially eliminate/reduce government spending, the deficit/debt will be reduced. The problem is not the need to increase taxes to pay for Obama's increased spending, but the necessity to slash spending 30%+!!!!!!!!!
Simon Templar| 11.26.10 @ 12:52AM
What got us sick is spending beyond our means an borrowing at a pace that has bankrupted us to pay for all the socialist giveaways, graft, and corruption. What started the ball rolling down hill was the lovely practice of giving away 4 trillion of our tax dollars to people to buy houses that they could not afford nor deserved. Its quite simple. But, hey, why be bothered with facts when you can argue using communist propaganda, lies, distortions, and quack socialist economics. Evidence. LOL. You probably never took a business course in your life and like your founding father, Marx, you are an egotistical, economically illiterate deadbeat that majored in the liberal arts.
serfer62| 11.24.10 @ 1:00PM
Indicators...the Tea Party rallies on Tax Day, April the 15th. If its big expect another 60 plus Kommiecrats & rinos ejected.
What a remarkable gift by The Won & the MFM to give us the horror of the airport harrassment and the media to exaggerate it as a start for the 2012 election revenge.
R| 11.24.10 @ 1:44PM
"If people are forced to choose between higher taxes for the rich or cuts in their well-deserved benefits, what do you think they're going to choose?"
Well-deserved benefits?
There are families on welfare for generations and you think that these hand outs are deserved?
What a twit you are. The only thing these "folks" deserve is a boot right out of this country. People like you too...
Ted R.| 11.24.10 @ 2:15PM
Typical Con. Tell me, how much do you think we'd save, if we eliminated Welfare spending for the poor?
Thank you for inviting me, a fellow citizen, to leave the country. That's the second or third invite I've got since I started posting here a few days ago. It really says everything about the Con mentality. It is a mentality not fit for participation in a democracy.
R| 11.24.10 @ 2:25PM
Typical Tard. Tell me, how much do you think we'd earn, if we eliminated business killing taxes and regulations and put the able bodied poor to work?
Not to mention all the good that would do for the slums you've created with your so called war on poverty?
And speaking of mentality, your brand is killing this country....Citizen...
Ray| 11.24.10 @ 3:03PM
It's amazing, isn't it, when so many people faithfully believe that it's in America's best interest to take around 3 percent of Gross Domestic Product and use it pay others not to work, not to contribute to the Gross Domestic Product?
Ray| 11.24.10 @ 2:54PM
"Tell me, how much do you think we'd save, if we eliminated Welfare spending for the poor?"
Somewhere around a trillion dollars, when you add state and federal spending together.
Now, how much would we earn if we, you know, gave the poor people JOBS instead of Welfare?
Ray| 11.24.10 @ 2:59PM
I should add that the trillion dollors a year in reduced taxes would lead to the employment of a LOT of poor people, would it not? Isn't that the best way to "fight" or "eliminate" poverty?
Ted R.| 11.24.10 @ 3:09PM
A trillion dollars, eh? Like to see where you got THAT figure.
Why don't you write your representative and insist that he start calling for cutting all that spending - after all, a trillion dollars! What good normal American wouldn't vote for cutting the deficit by pulling so many unproductive people off state support? Especially since putting that money into private hands would snap bang create jobs! Especially since normal, hardworking Americans surely outnumber all the people on the dole. What are you waiting for, guy? Call your representative! Circulate a petition! There's a trillion dollars at stake!
Ray| 11.24.10 @ 3:21PM
You asked for a figure of what someone thought would be saved, and then you question them for giving you a figure of what they thought would be saved? That's just STUPID!
Here's how I "arrived" at that figure: I added up the amount of money spend at both the federal and state levels, as well as COUNTY levels (Counties have their own "assistance" programs too, you know), on things like "General Assistance," "Medical Assistance," "Medicaid," Food Stamps," and the like, and it added up, by the application of simple addition, to around a trillion dollars a year.
Would you care to offer a different amount yourself, or will you continue to question the results of other's calculations without offering your OWN results in comparison?
Here's an idea: DO the math yourself!
Ray| 11.24.10 @ 3:25PM
"Why don't you write your representative and insist that he start calling for cutting all that spending - after all, a trillion dollars!"
I HAVE been doing that. MY Representative actually agrees with me! The problem is, YOUR Representative disagrees, so the two cancel each other out and NOTHING really changes.
Ted R.| 11.24.10 @ 3:32PM
Nice that your Rep agrees. Funny thing is, he's not done what you suggest. I mean, nothing stopping him from calling a press conference with a quick idea to save a trillion dollars. I GUARANTEE you, if he did, he'd get the cameras. If you've given him the solution, why isn't he doing something about it??
Ray| 11.24.10 @ 3:37PM
And you know this, how?
Ray| 11.24.10 @ 3:42PM
"I GUARANTEE you, if he did, he'd get the cameras."
By the way, SHE did. My representitve is Michelle Backman. How's that crow tasting?
Ted R.| 11.24.10 @ 4:35PM
Bachmann?! Oh, now that is a riot. From all I've seen of the lady, she is looney tunes - but I haven't yet heard that she called for the country-wide elimination of welfare spending! It makes perfect sense, though, coming from her. Anyway, if she really believes that that's the way to save a trillion, I'm surprised I haven't heard her hawking her Wile. E. Coyote idea yet...
John Navratil| 11.24.10 @ 4:53PM
And so it ends. Ted R. is reduced to calling people names. Not much more point in discussion, is there.
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.24.10 @ 5:23PM
Ted R...........WELCOME TO THE CONVERSATIONS HERE!
I must explain something to you, however. You are very close to becoming a scroll-troll.
...You know...the guy that everybody scrolls by?
Several solid citizens above have tried to reason with you; to no avail apparently.
I personally do not care what Soros pays you. You will get your talking points handed to you...until the very bright and informed commentators here ... scroll by and leave you as another "lost sheep".
Be happy and thank God you live in the USA tomorrow.
or.............................
arlo price| 11.26.10 @ 10:36AM
teddy.... If you knew half as much as you think you do, you'd be twice as smart as you really are.
MikeD| 11.24.10 @ 3:08PM
At least you can apparently string words together to form coherent sentences, which is seldom the case whe we 'tweak' other Libs. The foam and sputtering begins instantly and the name calling soon follows.
But, you haven't proved a thing. You love to use the generic "everybody knows" argument, or quote unnamed sources; or, an old standby, "anybody with a brain knows" defense. But, you haven't said a thing. Just think how much name calling and foaming at the mouth resulted from attacks on Algore and his 'globull warming' scam. He lied, and it is quite apparent. How about all the illegal shortcuts pelosi used in sneaking through a deeply flawed healthcare bill that none of the democrats bothered to read?
The good thing there is that, had a Republican done that, the media would be screaming and yelling for investigations and arrests; but, when lefties break the law, and break the rules, it's ok with them.
What do you think the media, and the dimwits in 'Move-on.org' would do if George Bush had witheld HIS personal history? Or if a Republican Speaker had pulled anything like Nancy did? You are a victim of your own smug sense of superiority. 99% of the intellectual fraud you spout has been tried over and over...and has failed. But, being convinced of your own intellectual superiority you blindly go forward because you think it didn't work because YOU weren't in charge. (But, why IS barry the muslim hiding his past? What's he afraid, or ashamed, of?)
Sort of like the complete arrogance spewing from barry the muslim's mouth when he told his fellow democrats that those things hadn't worked because he hadn't been there then. He is now, and that changes nothing except the price the rest of us will have to pay for his arrogance and narcissism. Elections have consequences, as the brilliant barry said two years ago.
Oldefarte| 11.26.10 @ 12:57PM
Ted, You might consider immigrating to Europe, as the governmental provided welfare benefits are superior to those of this country; but I'd suggest you do so quickly, since Europe is on the verge of Economic collapse due to their historical providing of same welfare for decades [and now, as your friend Jeremiah would say, THEMS CHICKENS HAVES COMES HOMES TO ROOST]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Intelligent Design| 11.24.10 @ 2:09PM
The election was a vote in favor of $2 trillion in federal spending cuts "yesterday", and a vote in favor of extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone. Voters recognize that government is the problem, not the solution. Government is strangling private initiative and private property, without which freedom will die.
Ray| 11.24.10 @ 2:51PM
"Republicans won by taking back the very seats we had took from them."
You've got to love the irony of statements like that. The Republican won by, wait for it, WINNING!
DaveS| 11.24.10 @ 4:20PM
Eleanor Holmes Norton's mathematics are astounding! She found the obvious: you don't take over by winning what you already hold. Amazing. What else can emanate from her cranium?
Oldefarte| 11.26.10 @ 12:59PM
Obviously, her IQ is comparable to that of Barbara Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters, and Cynthia McKinney!!!!!
The One Who Runs Like a Duck| 11.24.10 @ 4:18PM
We took a shellacking, Frau Teddie. One in five Americans are mentally ill. One in five Americans are progressives. Coincidence? I don't think so. I offer the proof of my good corporatist supporter, Frau Teddie. He is becoming more unhinged by the day. It is too bad because our trolls do not have medical insurance. Must have been an oversight. The other day he was instructing on who weren't real Americans and today he is whining that somebody asked him to leave the country. Yesterday he was calling cons name callers and today he is calling them dunces. When you call somebody a name caller are you a name caller? It is pretty obvious that he is on trial in his own mind. The guilty verdict is almost in. This kind of projection is the final stage before he snaps and does something harmful either to himself or his long suffering mother. What have we learned about our pal Frau Teddie? He is a power crazed authoritarian who yearns for a ruling class of Ivy League smart guys like Al Gore , John Kerry and yours truly. He hates woman and poor people and is unbelievably race conscious. Gosh I love analyzing people. I used to do Republicans and the bumpkins that live in the middle of the country. Now I am doing my supporters. They are far more interesting. I wonder if all liberals have mama issues? Some of us have daddy issues too. Teddie, who's your daddy? Your effeminate syntax indicates that possibly you have a less than normal relationship with him. Oh well. Write a book about your daddy; it will make him seem more real. Better yet, have somebody else write your book. We're going to let all the terrorists go and touch your junk, baby. Hit the reset button again.
Ted R.| 11.24.10 @ 8:18PM
Glad you find me so entertaining, Duck. You certainly are returning the favor.
Oldefarte| 11.26.10 @ 1:07PM
No, Ted, you are the intertaining one; but not so much as Obama, Pilosi, Reid, Waters, Rangel, Schumer, Conyers, etc [who are the real jokesters]. Oh, and as to Duck's insuation about that book having a ghost writer, it has been implicated to be none other than one Bill Ayers!!!!!
The One Who Runs Like a Duck| 11.26.10 @ 4:27PM
We took a shellacking, Oldefart. If you must shorten my name please refer to me as Lame Duck.
Dein| 11.24.10 @ 4:44PM
Dear TAS Readers,Please excuse Ted R until 9pm.He has run out of his democrat-delusional talking points and from 6-9pm he gets his refreshers from tingles,sgt.shultz,socialist larry,and miss butch.
Zilla | 11.24.10 @ 6:11PM
I'm in NY-19; our soon to be former Congressman, John Hall, wrote his own pink slip because he arrogantly ignored the will of the people he was paid to represent and he refused to heed our warnings of what would be the cost of not listening to us.
His attacks on free speech and political dissent didn't help him any either.
I am proud of the small role I played in my part of New York in aiding the Republican Tsunami and helping it to wash John Hall out of office.
You can read about why he needed to go here:
http://politizilla.blogspot.co.....st-be.html
and the lesson to be learned from his defeat here:
http://politizilla.blogspot.com/2010/11/vindicated.html
It's nice to see in print that my silly blue state of New York picked up more GOP seats in Congress than anywhere else. :)
Thank you, Robert, for your excellent article. Happy Thanksgiving.
carol| 11.24.10 @ 6:12PM
the principles are so clear and simple, that if the newly elected feel they can't get it, there are stronger folks out there to hold their feet to the fire
the conservative voice is only going to get louder watch
Alan Brooks| 11.24.10 @ 6:42PM
"Did you wag your finger at Rush when he said he hoped hopey-changey failed? If so, we wag at you."
No, I knew Rush was correct, as I knew Bush's detractors were correct concerning Bushian RINOism.
HOwever, AGAIN- you will make a mess of it in '12, as you have done for twenty entire years.
Impeach Don't Wait| 11.24.10 @ 8:37PM
"HOwever, AGAIN- you will make a mess of it in '12, as you have done for twenty entire years."
If we do, there's no hope for the world.
Oldefarte| 11.26.10 @ 1:13PM
Sorry, AB, but your HOPED FOR prediction is false, since the Republican Party has now morphed into an American Party, composed of Republicans, RINOS, Blue/Yellow etc Dog Democrats, and anyone else with brain cells, who works for a living [and not at running to their nearest governmental welfare office], pays taxes that financially support this country's government, who is Christian or Jewish, and whoever else if generally supportive of this country's well being. All the rest are your favored HOPE and CHANGE, YES WE CAN DEMOCRATS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Alan Brooks| 11.28.10 @ 4:39PM
"who is Christian or Jewish"
So Mormons, Hindus- and countless other creeds- are not American, Oldefarte? Mormons pay mega-taxes in Utah, BTW.
RedneckWhiteskinBluecollar| 11.25.10 @ 1:42PM
People, listen. Ignore Ted R. The issue is not Republican vs. Democrats.
The issue is Republicans vs. Conservatives. Face it, the Rep. party is not conservative. The party opposed Reagan, until it was apparent that he couldn't be stopped.
We need of systemic change, beginning with e.g., term limits.
If the Republican party is salvageable as a vehicle for conservatism, it needs to nominate for president in 2012 a radical, young, forward-looking conservative not associated with the District of Corruption.
Marco Rubio talked to his neighbors in the Cubans-in-exile community, therefore he's a "community organizer." In 2012 he'll have 2 years in the Senate. Therefore he's qualified.
Rubio-for-prez would cut the ground out from under the Dems in the Hispanic community, and help break the country-club, business-bureaucrat stranglehold on the Republican party.
Wake up folks. The Dems with Obama elected a radical leftist to the presidency.
WHO IS THE RADICAL CONSERVATIVE COUNTERPART?
I would vote for Gingrich in a heartbeat, but he has too many negatives, he's regarded as an insider and he's too old. I mean, too old to appeal to the increasingly youthful electorate.
"Hope and Change" struck a chord with voters. They thought Obama was something new and different.
Rubio would fit the bill beautifully. He's "new." He's brutally handsome. Women will vote for him for that reason, mark my words.
And he is an authentic conservative. A vanishing breed?
If not Rubio, who?
Oldefarte| 11.26.10 @ 1:19PM
Good points, fellow REDNECK, but the RP is being revamped by the likes of Rubio, Palin, Pence, Ryan,etc [any/all of which will be viable candidate possibilities in 2012]. As Sarah Palin's recent dustup with Barbara Bush demonstrated, the 'blue bloods' of the oold RP are no longer in their driver's seat!!!!!!!!!!
mad libertarian guy | 11.26.10 @ 10:47AM
I would hesitate to view this election as anything more than a vote against Obama and his agenda.
Obama and the democrats made a huge mistake in 2008. They understood his/their victory as a vote for progressivism rather than as a vote against neo-conism and tired Bush policies.
I would hope that the GOP does not make the same mistake this term. The 2010 election was not a vote for ultra-conservatism as many seem to think, but a vote against progressivism and Obama's agenda. Those two are VERY different things.
This country is center-right, and any party that wants to hold power for any amount of time needs to recognize and respect that, or we're going to see these pointless power swaps which lead us nowhere over and over.
Chris| 11.26.10 @ 11:44AM
"I don't think that anyone would ask me to compromise my principles," Buerkle answered. "I think the consensus vote was we need less government, lower taxes, we need to do what's right… to get our economy back on course."
Turning that "consensus" into policy is the Republicans mandate
THIS SAYS IT ALL!
cHRIS| 11.26.10 @ 11:47AM
Read "Crimes Against Liberty"
THAT REALLY SAYS IT ALL!!
Oldefarte| 11.26.10 @ 1:22PM
Amen, Chris, David Limbaugh's book is outstanding [and if you wish to read all of his columns, I'd suggest NEWSMAX.COM, which runs his somestimes bi-weekly editorials WHICH ARE ALSO EXCELLENT READING]!!!!!!!!
RedneckWhiteskinBluecollar| 11.26.10 @ 9:08PM
Greetings fellow old fart,
Well I hope you're right about the RP being revamped by Rubio, Palin, et al, but I frankly doubt it. Have you read Codevilla's The Ruling Class?
This is why I want term limits for everybody in the District of Corruption. By definition, you can't be a career bureaucrat/politico AND a conservative.
Oldefarte| 11.27.10 @ 11:45AM
Greeting also to you, fellow REDNECK. I've got several Dick Morris books to read and will be sure to put your recommended RULING CLASS on my list [thanks]. You are correct regarding term limits, and I think an experienced businessperson and a few numbers-crunching CPA's could quickly solve most of this country's major problems!!!!!
olainfree| 11.27.10 @ 9:19PM
Rollback, not containment of big government is the mandate.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/a.....027772.php
martin j smith| 11.28.10 @ 7:55AM
Only one more thing to say: This to Democrat Party and the Media: The People said NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! to you. Get used to it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. --This message must be made loud and clearly every day. Its time to out shout them. YOU LOST
John DuBose| 11.28.10 @ 9:30AM
People who were mad at Obama, Pelosi and Reid and their policies got reved up and voted against them. A few Democrats stayed home. Next go round, that will likely all change as a biger chunk of the electorate gets involved in a presidential year. Nobody has any mandates. If the economy is not better, more heads will roll.
BackToBasics| 11.28.10 @ 5:44PM
I'm all for a conservative mandate rahter than a Republican one.
Republicans did great at the more local level of winning so many state legislature seats. They did good but not as good as the latest polls predicted by winning, so far, 63 House seats.
The Senate was ok but not as good. In comparing it to a true wave victory, I give these results a grade as follows for Republicans:
State Legislative seats: A+
Congress: B+
Senate: C+
Yes, the Repubs did fairly good in New York and New Hampshire in the NE. Did quite well in many states, but did mucn more poorly in the far West than a wave election would suggest. Hispanics and illegals who voted went heavily for Democrats in the West. The Repubs increased their voter turnout by hundreds of thousands in California and Washington but yet they were not able to take the Senate or governor seats in contest there. Yes, there was voter fraud by the Democrats. But until the Repubs show the fortitude to take this on then this has to be taken into account as part of a weaker-than-expected wave.
This election may have bought us some time and I think Repubs will pick up more in 2012 but to reverse the leftist-trend of the country a lot will ride on who the presidential candidate is for the Repubs in 2012.
We did good but it was not as much of a wave as even those on the right are trying to make it out to be. Sorry to say it but I think I look at it honestly. And we have to stop the voter fraud which definitely did cost us some seats and YES I think Harry Reid did steal enough votes to make up a -2% deficit in the polls to a plus 5% win. He wanted to make sure that it would not be contested and knew the Repubs would be too intimidated to look into it and he was right. I think he was the worst as far as manufacturing such a large percentage of fraudulent votes.
As someone said after the elections, " The Democrats are only one amnesty away from permanent control of the Federal government." I cannot remember who said this but I think he is right.
GKPAL| 11.28.10 @ 8:30PM
By definition and the constitution the term "Congress" refers to the combine of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Just a small point. However, I would take issue with your premise that it was not a Republican wave. If winning 63 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate, plus the majority of Governorships and State Legislatures two short years after all the pundits predicted the demise of the Republican Party, is not a wave then I don't know what a wave is. Not only it was a wave , it was a Tsunami wave breaking in shallow waters.
After the 2008 disaster, not many people expected that the Republicans would come back so forcefully as they did in two short years, but we did, thanks to the Tea Party and independents. The question now is, can we keep the momentum going until 2012 and kick this bastard (I mean that literally) out of the White House and retake the Senate. Only if we keep their (Republicans) feet to the fire to do what they said they would do.
BackToBasics| 11.28.10 @ 11:25PM
My 2nd reply, see also below.
Yes, the Repubs were being left for dead. But the reason for this was that the RINOS were mostly in charge in 2006 and 2008. This dispirited the base who were mostly responsible for the gains we saw in 1994 - 2004. Once the grass roots was motivated again, we were bound to do better. But we need to do much more come 2012. We can only stall right now. To revese course will take 60+ seats in the Senate, more in the house and a true conservative president. We may get the House and Senate numbers we need but is there a true conservative who will win the nomination in 2012. It will be difficult with Democrats voting in large numbers in the primaries for the weakest candidate, like they did with McCain in 2008. And yet with this fiasco staring them in the face the Republican leaders such as Michael Steele cannot find it within themselves to work with the different states to see to it that this is not repeated in 2012. But so far, nothing has happened on ths front....
Until the leadership wakes up to these kinds of details I think we will always fall a little short of what would be best from our country. And we NEED what is best if we are to keep our beloved nation intact and stronger.
BackToBasics| 11.28.10 @ 11:09PM
Yes, you are right about the definition of "congress" the Constitution and I do know about it. But these days, maybe because of lax attitudes the term congress is also very often used to mean the House and the Senate is used to mean the Senate. I think you ALSO know about that.
I did not say it was not a wave but rather it was a wave of less than expected proportions on the Federal level based on the polling data going in.
Believe me, I wanted a tsunami as much as you and we got one on the local level but I still stand by my grades above.
And as I said, if the Repubs do not have the chutzpah or whatever to challege fraudulent voting then this has to be taken into acount when descriptive terms are applied. Had there been no fraud whatsoever it might have been a true large wave election at the higher levels. But when you increase the Republican vote by the hundreds of thousands in states such as CA and Washington and still cannot win against such lousy candidates as Boxer, Murray, Brown and even in the congressional districts in the San Joaquin Valley where fish win out over farmers for water rights imposed by Democrats then this goes against the idea of a "full wave election" on the federal level.
Going back to my earlier post, it was a wave but not as big as expected on the Federal level. I wish it had been but I don't see it that way. It will help but much more is needed as I also mentioned above.
voted against carter| 11.29.10 @ 8:03PM
Alan Brooks is a silly progressive libratard leftwingnut dumbocrat TROLL.
Don't WAST your time replying to it.
If you do not feed the troll's, they go back under the bridges they crawled out from under.
Howard Ino| 11.30.10 @ 12:01AM
If this was not a mandate...
Then keep on pushing Democrats....
WE WILL VOTE AGAIN IN 2012!