Voters R Stooopid

That's what liberals always say when voters choose Republicans over Democrats.

At a recent discussion on the Nov. 2 election hosted by the local Society for Professional Journalists, UW-Madison political science professor Charles Franklin was expounding on why Republicans emerged triumphant, in Wisconsin and throughout the land.
In my questions to Franklin, I noted that the public seemed to vote against its own interests and stated desires, for instance by electing candidates who'll drive up the deficit with fiscally reckless giveaways to the rich.
Franklin, perhaps a bit too candidly, conceded the point. "I'm not endorsing the American voter," he answered. "They're pretty damn stupid."

Liberals think that anyone who isn't a millionaire should vote for them so the voter can take the millionaire's money. But voters understand that when Democrats promise to screw over only "the rich," the voter is going to get screwed. Why? Because "the rich" employ a lot of those voters or sell goods to those voters who will end up paying for the screwing.

Liberals mock anyone who votes for candidates based on more than their personal prurient interest (such as the pro-lifer who votes for candidates who don't think babies are fair game until kindergarten). Yet the same liberals argued all through the past election cycle that voters should vote for Democrats because of Obamacare (which wasn't supposed to affect anyone who already had insurance *snicker*), immigration and race issues.

In 2006 and 2008, Democrats lied to voters about what they would do and what would happen if Democrats were voted into office. They promised not to raise taxes, then promised not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 per year, then about who were the uninsured, whose health insurance would change and whose would not, and how much it would cost (remember when Democrats said you could have healthcare like Congress?). Democrats lied about the stimulus bill and unemployment. They flipped off every American over Obamacare, and now they have the nerve to argue that the voters are stupid for not wanting more Democrat bullshit?

Democrats have insulted voters for years (remember What's the Matter with Kansas?) when voters use their brains to vote out Democrats. Let's hope Democrats will have more opportunities to insult the electorate in 2012.

Conservatives Don't "Get" Racism...Except They Do

For those assuming conservatives are just closeted KKK members, Adam Serwer sets 'em straight:

What's clear, though, is that conservatives deploy racially tinged rhetoric against liberal policy priorities and Democratic politicians, and that Obama being president has a lot to do with these arguments being used. Rush Limbaugh wouldn't be comparing him to gang members if he weren't black. With Clinton, Limbaugh's sexism, rather than his racism, would be amplified. So while it might be unfair to suggest people are conservatives because they're racists, it's entirely fair to ask why conservatives are comfortable with their most prominent ideological figure's casual use of racism as a political bludgeon.

There's another option here that guys like Serwer miss, which is that conservatives like Limbaugh use the attack that is most likely to enrage liberals. That's why he mocks environmentalists with chainsaw sound effects or feminists with the shrewish voices of their leaders (not to mention calling them "babes" constantly). The "casual use of racism" is simply a way of taunting liberals to explain why their fealty to a black president regardless of his abandonment of their treasured beliefs isn't racism itself.

Republicans know they'll be called racists no matter how carefully they construct their criticisms of Teh One. That's why comparing the POTUS to spraycan-wielding graffiti artists is both subtle and effective. And, in the comments, Tom Maguire completely destroys the author's argument that the word "gang" is only used against darker-skinned politicians.

If liberals spent less time being offended and searching for "dog whistles" from commentators, they might discover that their slide to obscurity is directly related to their policy proposals, not racist/sexism/otherism by the voters.

The GOP Didn't Just Kill It at the Top...

Perhaps more important than the GOP gains at the national level is the crushing number of Republicans who won at the state and local level.

Devastation: GOP Picks Up 680 State Leg. Seats

Republicans now hold the redistricting "trifecta" -- both chambers of the state legislature and the governorship -- in 15 states. They also control the Nebraska governorship and the unicameral legislature, taking the number up to 16. And in North Carolina -- probably the state most gerrymandered to benefit Democrats -- Republicans hold both chambers of the state legislature and the Democratic governor does not have veto power over redistricting proposals.

From Hot Air:

In the longer term, though, Republicans will have more connection to voters and build better organizations in states where they have achieved control. That will put Democrats at a disadvantage for fundraising, but also in developing candidates for public office. It will put more Republicans into statewide offices, into governorships, and into Congress. That impact will likely be felt long past the next census, and may be the most underrated effects of the 2010 wave.

Here in Texas, Republicans now have a super majority in the legislature, meaning Democrats can't stop any legislation from reaching the governor. This is great news for legislation that has been bottled up for years (hello, Voter ID!).

Why Republicans Won Tuesday

Of course there's a lot of armchair quarterbacking about Tuesday's elections from both sides of the aisle. Not surprisingly, liberals think the problem was that blue dog Democrats didn't want to spend enough. Seriously.

It's impossible to emphasize enough that the reason Democrats got their asses kicked so badly in this election comes down to two things:

1. Unemployment
2. Obamacare

I've always said that it wouldn't matter if Barack Obama had found a cure for cancer, if the unemployment rate was over 8%, Democrats would lose in 2010. And 2012, for that matter.

But worse for Democrats is the anger their underhanded and sleazy tactics in passing Obamacare created. Americans, perhaps naively, believe that the legislative process is connected with public support for certain ideas. Once Americans make it known they don't support certain legislation (think Hillarycare), that legislation is supposed to die a quick death. But rather than admitting that the People didn't want Democrats' version of health care reform, those "representatives of the People" told the People F.U. and passed it anyway. Not hard to figure out why so many voters decided it was time to revoke the D's driver's licenses.

George Will says voters recoiled from liberalism. He has about the best definition of progressivism I've seen:

The progressive agenda is actually legitimated by the incomprehension and anger it elicits: If the people do not resent and resist what is being done on their behalf, what is being done is not properly ambitious. If it is comprehensible to its intended beneficiaries, it is the work of insufficiently advanced thinkers.

Karl at Patterico's Pontifications watches the struggle of liberals to understand what happened to them. Good stuff.

I'm a little rusty at this, so bear with me while I get back in the swing of things...

Best Video of the Day

Here

BITTER CLINGERS, UNITE!

It's been a while since I've hit the blog, mainly because RL is very busy these days. I'm working full-time for the first time in a couple of years (I've done freelance work during that time and still do), plus the kiddoes are back in school and that requires more attention than Amanda Marcotte would ever believe. And I've satisfied my wiseass self on Facebook where I tend to argue with people I would recognize at WalMart.

But tonight is such a sweet and tasty night, I just couldn't help but putting up a post. At this moment, Republicans have picked up 31 seats in the House and 4 seats in the Senate. Given the predictions of political death for Republicans after the 2008 elections, this is a particularly wonderful result.

White House: Obamacare Doesn't Reduce Costs or Deficit

We're not surprised Democrats are backpedaling on the strongest claims made about Obamacare: That it would cut the cost of medicine and improve the deficit.

Our lovable lefty Perry claimed repeatedly that the CBO said it would reduce the deficit in the first decade. This was always a sham claim, since Obamacare takes in 10 years worth of payments from taxpayers but only pays out 6 years of benefits. Even Democrats can improve costs when they aren't paying for things.

This is just the latest example of how the Democrat agenda is coming back to bite 'em in the ass, and I can't say "I told you so" enough. I'm hopeful November is just the start.

Conservatives Aren't the Extreme Ones

Poor Democrats. At private fundraisers with no cameras or microphones, Barack Obama crows about passing the "most progressive agenda in decades," but in front of the cameras? No, he's a middle of the road guy. It's too bad he thinks Americans are so stupid they will fall for the tricks.

Fortunately, we have ads like this one to remind people who the extreme ones are.

I Agree with Paul Krugman

Or, at least, his conclusion:

What I expect, instead, if and when the midterms go badly, is that the usual suspects will say that it was because Mr. Obama was too liberal — when his real mistake was doing too little to create jobs.

But, of course, Barack Obama hasn't done anything to create jobs precisely because of his liberalness. Obama has pursued a course that Americans have objected to vociferously, yet it has done nothing to stop the assault on the American economy.

Some of my friends argue that Obama seeks to ruin our economy and replace it with socialism, communism, or some form of dictatorship, but I'm not that conspiratorial. I do believe BO thinks his policies are best for solving the country's problems, but his answers are all wrong. While Krugman complains that the stimulus package was simply too small to turn around our economic woes, most of us recognize that personal bad economic times don't get better by continuing to rack up giant credit card bills. It gets better by (a) cutting spending and (b) increasing income. In the case of our country, this would mean holding the line on discretionary spending (no increases) and giving businesses incentives for hiring and producing. This could be accomplished in a variety of ways, including assuring businesses that you weren't going to add a bunch of new regulations that are going to cost them billions to implement (such as Obamacare).

Instead, what we have are Democrats behaving like Democrats, then shrugging when Americans reject it. For them, the problem isn't their arrogance and terrible policies; the problem is America.

The Saddest Truth

Charles Krauthammer writes that Barack Obama's presidency is a play in two acts and he's already gotten everything he could have wanted in the first act (his first four years).

But Obama's most far-reaching accomplishment is his structural alteration of the U.S. budget. The stimulus, the vast expansion of domestic spending, the creation of ruinous deficits as far as the eye can see are not easily reversed.

These are not mere temporary countercyclical measures. They are structural deficits because, as everyone from Obama on down admits, the real money is in entitlements, most specifically Medicare and Medicaid. But Obamacare freezes these out as a source of debt reduction. Obamacare's $500 billion in Medicare cuts and $600 billion in tax increases are siphoned away for a new entitlement -- and no longer available for deficit reduction.

The result? There just isn't enough to cut elsewhere to prevent national insolvency. That will require massive tax increases -- most likely a European-style value-added tax. Just as President Ronald Reagan cut taxes to starve the federal government and prevent massive growth in spending, Obama's wild spending -- and quarantining health-care costs from providing possible relief -- will necessitate huge tax increases.

The net effect of 18 months of Obamaism will be to undo much of Reaganism. Both presidencies were highly ideological, grandly ambitious and often underappreciated by their own side. In his early years, Reagan was bitterly attacked from his right. (Typical Washington Post headline: "For Reagan and the New Right, the Honeymoon Is Over" -- and that was six months into his presidency!) Obama is attacked from his left for insufficient zeal on gay rights, immigration reform, closing Guantanamo -- the list is long. The critics don't understand the big picture. Obama's transformational agenda is a play in two acts.

Act One is over. The stimulus, Obamacare, financial reform have exhausted his first-term mandate. It will bear no more heavy lifting. And the Democrats will pay the price for ideological overreaching by losing one or both houses, whether de facto or de jure. The rest of the first term will be spent consolidating these gains (writing the regulations, for example) and preparing for Act Two.

I've been stunned when I've read the grumbling from leftwingers about how centrist Obama is. They aren't happy with spending $1 trillion we don't have; they insist we spend much, much more. They don't like Obamacare because it isn't socialist enough to have a public option. They complain that financial reform doesn't go far enough because some people will still be able to make a profit.

And yet, all that Obama has done to us is precisely why so many people want to kick the Democrats out. It's bizarre to me that so many people blindly voted for this man because they wanted to make history or they wanted to believe, like small children that they can eat their cake and still have it.

Krauthammer goes on to say that the second act of Obama's show will come after 2012. If Republicans win in 2010, it's far more likely Obama will be re-elected. If the consequences weren't so dire, it would almost be worth having the Democrats in charge until then.

Texas Governor Ad: Bill White Is Barack Obama

I thought this ad against Democrat candidate for Texas governor Bill White to be interesting. In 2006 and 2008, Democrats successfully ran against George W. Bush, even though he wasn't running. They ran against him in national, state and local races. Now, apparently, Republicans at all levels may find it effective to nationalize their local elections and run against Barack Obama.



In fairness to Bill White, he's no Barack Obama. He supports the death penalty and the Second Amendment, but it's pretty hard to be a Texan and not support those issues.

Democrats Wanted to Be In Charge Until They Were Responsible

Greg Sargent is crying in his beer that "Republican obstructionism" is preventing Democrats from ruining things further and Democrats are getting blamed for the crappy economy they're in charge of!

What's more, the public is deeply unhappy with the Federal government's performance, with an astonishing 64 percent saying they're dissatisfied or angry about it.

Yet Republicans are not paying any price for this. While the poll shows the GOP is not trusted on the economy, Republicans have edged ahead in the generic ballot matchup, 47-46. Anti-incumbent sentiment is soaring -- only one-fourth say they're inclined to re-elected their Representative -- which will also help Republicans. And a majority, 51 percent, support GOP control of Congress so it can act as a "check" on Obama's policies.

This clearly demonstrates that people have not connected GOP obstructionism with one of its most visible results: The prevention of the extended of unemployment benefits that a sizable majority says it wants.

People also say (by large margins) that they want less government spending and lower taxes, but I notice Sargent isn't wasting any time worrying about what Americans want when it comes to that.

If this Gold-Plated Witch on Wheels is cackling, it's because she remembers liberals gleefully talking about Republican minorities for decades to come and how elections have consequences. How are those consequences doing now, buddy?

Democrats: Governing Is Haaaard

When I read whining like this and the attached Atrios post, I have to fight the urge to reach through the computer and smack these people. I mean, seriously, guys, grow the f*** up.

You wanted to run the country. You hated George W. Bush and Republicans and bragged about how much better you would do when in office. Well, you're in office now with the largest majorities in forever and you still can't pass any legislation. I have a novel idea for you: maybe--just maybe--most people didn't vote for your stupid, radical ideas and they've spent the last 18 months letting you know they didn't. If you weren't such egotistical moronic jerks, you would have looked at the Tea Party rallies, the townhall meetings, the innundation of phonecalls, e-mails and letters from your constituents and decided to go in a different direction from the leftwing agenda you started with. You would have understood that giving Americans the finger over Obamacare was going to scare the pee out of your conservative wing and spell doom for any more cooperation from them...because you don't care about their concerns any more than you care about regular Americans' concerns.

If you want Americans to support your policies and you want your own membership to support your policies, then quit treating everybody like they are children who don't understand what is for their own good. Start treating the citizens of this country as adults, not wards of the state. And when we tell you DON'T PASS OBAMACARE, listen to us. Then you wouldn't be left whining that, oh, boo-hoo, we can't pass any more radical legislation that Americans are gonna hate.

Instead, what we're watching is the disintegration of the American left, which wants to burn down the house before the rabble beats down the door. After all, once you pull the lever in the voting booth, you quit having an opinion about politics, right? Certainly, you don't have an opinion those great scholars in the Democratic Party consider important.

Why You Should Vote for Democrats

Don't forget in November what Democrats actually think of you.

Obama Administration to Challenge Popular Arizona Law

And why not? It's not like this administration cares what Americans actually think about issues like immigration.

Ed Morrissey points out that the White House announced this decision to people in Ecuador before Americans. Well, that's becoming par for the course. When you have such absolute contempt for what your fellow Americans think about a variety of issues (health care, the economy, jobs, national debt, the gulf oil crisis), should it be any wonder this guy discusses domestic policy with foreigners first?

Governor Jan Brewer blasted Obama and his administration for their handling of this policy direction. I agree, but perhaps she can take comfort in it. After all, an administration this inept is unlikely to successfully walk and chew gum at the same time, let alone challenge the validity of their new immigration-enforcement law. Meanwhile, Obama will continue to pursue a policy that is even less popular than his ObamaCare bill, just in time for the midterm referendum on his first two years in office.

I can't decide if the White House is honestly this ignorant or arrogant, but then voters are still evenly split about whether Obama deserves re-election or not. My guess is that Obama is going to continue to stick his finger in the eye of the public since he expects to lose control of Congress in November. After that, he'll try governing on charisma or something. In any case, this is more government by the elites for your own good, not for what you want.

The Liberal Spin Machine in Overdrive

Liberals are in ecstasy that Democrats held onto a seat that's been a Democrat seat for a generation. Woo hoo! Democrats held a seat! Not that they won anything they hadn't already held. It's just the principle of the matter, see.

Forget that Democrats pretty much own Pennsylvania, even though John McCain narrowly won it in 2008. This is a place that re-elected John Murtha even after his scuzzy connection to Abscam and his pork barrel politicking. Why wouldn't they vote for another Democrat?

How exactly is it a level playing field when the Democrats have a statewide U.S. Senate primary happening at the same time? There was no comparative factor getting Republicans motivated to interrupt their busy lives to vote. That's not soreloserdom blogging, it's just attention to reality. The Democrats were more motivated in this race. This ain't the end of a trend. It's just another special election, in a Democratic district, and on a big Democratic primary day. And a Democrat won. Disappointing. But not paradigm-smashing shocking. And not devastating.

It's not like they won in a Republican stronghold or something. Democrats dodged a bullet, but they're still stuck trying to justify the crappy economy and their profligate spending. It's almost worth it watching Democrats suddenly discover their conservative roots against the nutroot leadership they have. Almost, but not quite.

Many pundits are arguing that Republicans need to be re-thinking any attempt to nationalize the election. I see nothing wrong with noting Democrats' pathetic Obama bootlicking, but after all, all politics is local. Pick 'em off (ooh, a gun metaphor) where possible. You knew they weren't going to give Republicans any credit anyway, right?

The Democrats' Civil War

This is the first I've seen on the Democrats' civil war. We've watched the Left salivating for 18 months about the "Republican civil war," which really hasn't been much of a war, but rather a return to conservative values and candidates.

The Democrats, OTOH, really do have a civil war between it's left-center base and it's moonbat, fringy left base, which has become way more vocal over the last year. In the Republican "civil war," the losers were RINOs who didn't have much support anyway. And as the country has moved to the right, RINOs were less likely to win anyway.

But the luny left is pushing the Democratic Party even farther away from the center than before. This strategy worked in 2006 and 2008, when Democrats could draw a big distinction between themselves and the unpopular Republicans and George W. Bush. But with GWB out of the picture and Democrats with huge majorities, unpopular policies and an anemic economy, it's hard to see how the strategy works these days.

One of Barack Obama's strategies in the 2008 campaign was that he was the black guy who isn't scary. His policies were centrist and he wanted to unite the country. But the Barack Obama who emerged as president has tried to push the country in directions it is unwilling to go (such as closing Guantanamo Bay or union "card check" legislation) and when he forced it his way (with Obamacare) he infuriated the very people needed for Democrats to retain power.

It's a mix of policies and priorities that don't help Democrats in any way. Americans have been worried about the economy since the fall of 2008, and Obama's priorities (the Porkapalooza bill, Obamacare, cap and trade) have left Americans more than just disillusioned. The shady tactics Democrats used to ram through Obamacare infuriated voters, which is why Dems don't want to talk about health care anymore, but are anxious to do something--anything--for jobs. The anxiety over November losses is also why Congress is shirking its duties by not making a budget for next year. Anything that draws attention to Democrat failures is going to be ignored for the next six months, even constitutional duties.

Of course, the far left fringe of the Democratic Party is no happier than centrists. They've gotten even less of what they wanted and honestly think places like Arkansas are going to elect moonbats. Delusional, true, but it it all the leftwingers have left to cling to, right?

Republicans On the Offensive Concerning Obamacare

Republicans aren't letting us forget the abomination of Obamacare, and well they shouldn't.

Senate Republicans are poised to try to reignite the health care debate by launching a coordinated political messaging offensive to target Democrats and the White House for what they contend are the new law’s onerous consequences.



A group of Republican Senators who played key roles in the yearlong fight over health care legislation met Thursday in Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (Ky.) office to discuss the strategy. Under the slogan “second opinion,” Republicans plan to communicate their message on multiple fronts, including on the Senate floor, in press conferences, via the Internet and through television and radio appearances.



A Republican Senate aide described the effort as intended “to draw attention to the consequences of the health care law that the White House hopes people miss.”

It's important to remind people of the horrendous effects of Obamacare, since most of them aren't poised to kick in until after Obama's re-election (or ouster, we hope). We're already seeing some of what was in the bill that Democrats didn't want us to see, but Americans must be reminded right up to November that Democrats passed this legislation even though a majority of Americans didn't want it.

The Rise of the Purists

If you want to see what the left thinks of establishment Republicans (like Utah's Bob Bennett) losing in the primaries, this sneering post at Crooks and Liars is a good place to start.

Bennett's unforgivable Senate sins were, according to local party hacks officials, daring to consider any form of health care reform, his TARP vote and other ideological votes around constitutional issues like the flag burning amendment. Despite Mitt Romney's endorsement, party purists coalesced around the money and the tea party take-no-prisoners doctrine, respectively.

It's odd to me that the same people fainting over "hope" and "change" are deriding anyone on the right who actually means it. Instead, what we get is complaints about the "far right" taking over the party. A tip for the nutroots: when you are holding up Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush as the Republicans you like, you aren't going to win many friends among conservatives.

Oh, I know. The nutroots aren't really interested in the GOP being affective in any sense (unless it's in helping Democrats pass their agenda). But still, the concern trolls on the left need to do a little more work on their act.

Shades of November?

Dem Turnout Falls Off A Cliff

Turnout among Dem voters dropped precipitously in 3 statewide primaries on Tuesday, giving the party more evidence that their voters lack enthusiasm ahead of midterm elections.

In primaries in NC, IN and OH, Dems turned out at far lower rates than they have in previous comparable elections...

By contrast, GOP turnout was up almost across the board. 373K people voted in Burr's uncompetitive primary, nearly 9% higher than the 343K who voted in the equally non-competitive primary in '04. Turnout in House races in IN rose 14.6% from '06, fueled by the competitive Senate primary, which attracted 550K voters. And 728K voters cast ballots for a GOP Sec/State nominee in Ohio, the highest-ranking statewide election with a primary; in '06, just 444K voters cast ballots in that race.

I hope the momentum keeps up through the November election cycle. There's been some worry on talk radio that anger at the Democrats may have peaked too early, but I'm not convinced. When you have the nutroots working hard to discredit the Tea Party effect, you're probably doing something right. I will say this, though. I'm not as concerned that every person elected is a conservative, just a Republican. A politician who votes the way I want 20% of the time is still better than a Democrat.

UPDATE: A rebuttal to the anti-Tea Party argument from Hot Air's Ed Morrissey:

The Tea Party movement is really just half of the story. While Democrats can count on getting their most engaged voters to the polls in the midterms, they can no longer count on the occasional voter as they did in 2006 and especially in 2008. After almost four years of Nancy Pelosi and sixteen months of Barack Obama, the country has dug itself into a huge deficit hole and a moribund economy. The question is no longer who gets the blame for it, but whether Obama and the Democrats are the solution. The lack of enthusiasm among Democrats show that the answer is increasingly no.

President Obama will continue trying to pin the blame for everything wrong with his administration on his predecessor, but fewer voters believe him and more are just starting to label him a whiner and a bully.