Now it’s the GOP’s turn to show what it learned

In the weeks following Barack Obama’s election as president, we read and heard all about how he would not make the same mistakes that Bill Clinton did early in his first term. Those mistakes cost Democrats the majority in the House for 12 years and the Senate for most of that time, leaving Clinton largely to work with Republicans in Congress on their issues rather than continuing to pursue, for example, HillaryCare.

As Democrats prepare to lose perhaps more seats two weeks from today than even their 54-seat disaster in 1994, it’s pretty clear that they didn’t learn all their lessons.

If we assume that the GOP will take over at least the House majority (a majority in the Senate seems like a long shot), the question becomes: Did Republicans learn more from the Clinton era than Democrats did?

This article in today’s Wall Street Journal suggests that some of them may have:

A number of House Republicans, including some who are likely to be in the leadership, are pushing a post-election strategy aimed at securing concrete legislation, with the goal of showing they can translate general principles into specific action.

Among the ideas is to bring a series of bills to the floor, as often as once a week, designed to cut spending in some way. Longer term, GOP leaders say they recognize they may have to compromise with Democrats in tackling broader problems.

If they recapture the House, Republicans say they are wary of following the example of the class of 1994, which shut down the government in a standoff with President Bill Clinton. Top Republicans contend that passing legislation, or at least making a good faith effort to do so, will earn them more credibility with voters than refusing to waver from purist principles.

“It’s pretty clear the American people expect us to use the existing gridlock to create compromise and advance their agenda,” said Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.). “They want us to come together [with the administration] after we agree to disagree.”

GOP leaders stressed that this depends on the willingness of President Barack Obama to compromise as well. And some say if the post-election atmosphere is especially toxic, such compromises may be difficult.

The article goes on to suggest that the Senate, where there could be as many as eight new GOP members joining Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina in a kind of tea party caucus, might temporarily cede to the House its role as “the more sober institution.” A CNN.com article makes a similar point:

Tea Party activists and the Republican establishment … are now united in the common goal of trying to defeat Democrats on November 2. Look ahead to the next day, and there is a good chance the alliance will begin to show cracks should Tea Party candidates score big wins — especially those running for Senate.

(snip)

These new lawmakers would immediately become an influential voting bloc with other GOP senators aligning themselves with this group. Republican leaders would have to juggle the demands of a more conservative GOP conference while facing the reality that to pass legislation in the Senate, compromise is a necessity.

My prediction for the Senate — where I think there’s an excellent chance of having five tea-party senators (including DeMint), a good chance of seven and an outside chance at all nine — is that there will be opportunities for compromise within the GOP membership, and between Republicans and Democrats.

But to the degree that these compromises require help from tea-party members, the establishment will have to adopt a new currency. The tea-party folks are coming to Washington precisely because of “compromises” — another word is buy-offs — like the Cornhusker Kickback and Gator Aid in ObamaCare, and all the earmarks secured by the likes of Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican who is still waging a write-in campaign against Joe Miller, who defeated her in the primary.

If compromise is going to take place, it won’t be on the same kind of terms to which the long-time denizens of Capitol Hill are accustomed. Those are the kinds of compromises that eventually led to the GOP’s self-inflicted downfall.

99 comments Add your comment

saywhat?

October 19th, 2010
11:22 am

Jefferson

October 19th, 2010
11:34 am

Wouldn’t it be nice if a zebra could change it’s stripes. Excuse my apprehention as the lies stand in the way.

Hillbilly Deluxe

October 19th, 2010
11:44 am

The problem with political parties is that they see what they want to see. Win an election 52% to 48% and they see it as some grand mandate. Then they charge of in a leftward/rightward direction, when what most people want is near the center. What they don’t realize is that the major reason they got voted in, is because people are sick of the other party. They didn’t get voted in because people thought they were the greatest thing since sliced bread. They tend to believe their own rhetoric and press clippings.

JKL2

October 19th, 2010
11:47 am

Gingrich said they deserved to be voted out for not following the Contract with America. I hope this time we’ve learned to put the right people back in Congress. Leave the RINO’s at home.

CJ

October 19th, 2010
12:03 pm

Kyle’s analysis of why Dems are likely to lose in this election is seriously flawed, and ironically, illustrates why Dems stand to lose in this election. Nonsensical assertions (e.g., ‘…we read and heard all about how [Obama] would not make the same mistakes that Bill Clinton did early in his first term.’), misinformation, and twisted logic have dominated the “liberal” media and punditry. We live in a world where down is up and black is white

TARP didn’t work (it did), the stimulus didn’t work (it did), health care reform increases the deficit (it reduces it), mandates are unconstitutional (they’re not), Obama didn’t reach out to Republicans (he did) are just some examples of the misinformation perpetuated by the right and their media enablers. What they don’t tell their readers and viewers is that those who set the house on fire and have done everything in their power to prevent Obama and Congress from putting the fire out–primarily via Senate Republicans using the filibuster to prevent up-or-down votes on job-saving and job-creating legislation coming out of the House.

Now with the help of Republican Supreme Court appointees having given the billionaires sitting in board rooms seemingly unlimited access to stockholder funds for the purpose of keeping voters misinformed, the media silences experts who are familiar with the real causes of and solutions to joblessness and economic instability while highlighting every backwards utterance of serial liars and corporate tools such as Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Glenn Beck, Dick Armey, and Karl Rove.

With that said, to their discredit, Dems do not know how to win elections. They don’t know how to stand up to bullies, and they don’t know how to fight for their beliefs. They will lose in November. But to the extent that it is their fault, it won’t be because of how they legislate. It will be because of how they communicate. Poorly.

(For another point of view on the President’s record on the economy, go to the White House website to watch this short video: http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2010/10/19/white-house-white-board-cea-chair-austan-goolsbee-explains-jobs-tr )

Road Scholar

October 19th, 2010
12:07 pm

When will the repubs address immigration? The economy? Jobs?

Oh they already have…when Bush was president, and look how well that went!

Intown

October 19th, 2010
12:09 pm

I have a hard time seeing how this is not a disaster for this country. I foresee nothing getting done. I see no room for compromise with a significant Tea Party contingent in the Senate. They will vote based on their flawed ideology rather than what’s in the best long-term interests of our nation. The Republican leadership is going to have a hard time with these guys if they stick to their “values.” If they don’t, then presumably the angry conservative portion electorate will vote them out next time after they are labeled RINOs or TPINOs.

John

October 19th, 2010
12:16 pm

“Among the ideas is to bring a series of bills to the floor, as often as once a week, designed to cut spending in some way. ”

Notice how the Republicans keep saying they will cut spending but will not tell us what spending they plan on cutting. When asked during an interview on Fox News, how they plan on cutting the deficits while reducing taxes…what cuts they plan on making, Carly Fiorina dodged the question and would not answer. The question was asked 7 times and she dodged it all 7 times.

John

October 19th, 2010
12:23 pm

“The Republican leadership is going to have a hard time with these guys if they stick to their “values.” ”

That shouldn’t be a problem Intown. Witch Christine O’Donnell will just cast a spell on them as well as all Americans to accept their values. And if that doesn’t work, Sharron Angle will lead in using their 2nd Amendment remedies.

Here Spot

October 19th, 2010
12:30 pm

This is so much fun watching the Dems become more angry as Nov 2nd approaches. LMAO…for more humor go visit Tuckers Blog. She is beside herself!!

Here Spot

October 19th, 2010
12:31 pm

John. You dont seem to understand. We are gonna be in charge and will let you know what you need to know and when you need to know it.

Big D

October 19th, 2010
12:41 pm

John,
A real good place to start with deficit reduction is to rein in out right corruption like the “Pigford vs Glickman fiasco. Look it up and you will see why we are in trouble, but the liberal media is trying their best to sweep it under the rug. The sad thing is this is the smoking gun of what is now the norm in D.C.

John

October 19th, 2010
12:43 pm

These are the people you Republicans support…Christine O’Donnell does not even know what the 1st Amendment is. In a debate with Chris Coons, “When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O’Donnell asked: “You’re telling me that’s in the First Amendment?”"

Scary isn’t it?

From the AP

“Republican Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell of Delaware on Tuesday questioned whether the U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of church and state, appearing to disagree or not know that the First Amendment bars the government from establishing religion.

The exchange came in a debate before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School, as O’Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons’ position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine.

Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that “religious doctrine doesn’t belong in our public schools.”

“Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” O’Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O’Donnell asked: “You’re telling me that’s in the First Amendment?”

Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.

“You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp,” Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O’Donnell’s grasp of the Constitution.

Erin Daly, a Widener professor who specializes in constitutional law, said that while there are questions about what counts as government promotion of religion, there is little debate over whether the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from making laws establishing religion.

“She seemed genuinely surprised that the principle of separation of church and state derives from the First Amendment, and I think to many of us in the law school that was a surprise,” Daly said. “It’s one thing to not know the 17th Amendment or some of the others, but most Americans do know the basics of the First Amendment.”

O’Donnell didn’t respond to reporters who asked her to clarify her views after the debate.”

Here Spot

October 19th, 2010
12:50 pm

John, its too late for all of that. Would you like a crying towel?

John

October 19th, 2010
12:54 pm

Big D, Pigford vs Glickman cost the US $1 Billion. Farm subsidies, which is supported by Repbulicans as well as Democrats cost the US $245.2 Billion in 1995-2009. Pigford vs Glickman is small potatoes compared to the farm subsidies, yet were are Republican candidates yelling to stop all farm subsidies.

Again, my question is where Republicans telling us exactly where they plan on making cuts? They say they’re going to cut spending but won’t say where where they plan on making these spending cuts.

jconservative

October 19th, 2010
1:01 pm

“John. You dont seem to understand. We are gonna be in charge and will let you know what you need to know and when you need to know it.”

This smells of the same Big Government beliefs that got us in this mess in the first place.

What happened to Small Government? Am I the only one in the country that wants a small government?

So lets see what should have been learned. In FY 2009 (Bush’s last budget) we spent $3.5 trillion dollars and the revenue was $2.1 trillion dollars. That left a $1.4 trillion deficit.

FY 2010 (Obama) turned out to be a tad better, the deficit was only $1.3 trillion – I said a tad better, not a lot better.

So as a result of FY 2009 and FY 2010 we borrowed $2.7 trillion.

So we will see what everyone learned. Based on the fact that we have borrowed $12.6 trillion in the last 30 years I really hope someone has learned something.

What we should have learned is that you cannot cut taxes and increase spending in the same budget. But we have done that 30 straight times.

So I find it hard to believe that suddenly, out of the blue, someone in Congress or the White House actually has learned something.

Nice column Kyle. Run it again 1/2/2011.

John

October 19th, 2010
1:03 pm

Noticed how the GOP establishment shut the Tea Party candidates up after they won their primaries. At least before the primaries, these Tea Party candidates were saying where they want to make cuts…gut Social Security, Medicare, even the VA and privatize all these programs. Ask these Tea Party candidates now about privatizing these programs and they dodge the questions.

Big T-Party Guy

October 19th, 2010
1:06 pm

They say they’re going to cut spending but won’t say where where they plan on making these spending cuts.

You have to elect us to learn what we’re going to cut.

John

October 19th, 2010
1:13 pm

jconservative, are you that naive? Bush took office with a surplus and took us into a deficit. Republicans were in charge of the White House as well as both the Senate and the House. These same Republicans, now say they’ve seen the light and will cut spending…yet, won’t tell us what they plan on cutting. And we’re suppose to believe and trust them?

“We are gonna be in charge and will let you know what you need to know and when you need to know it.”

That’s exactly the message Republicans are spreading. But didn’t they just recently come out with a Promise to America where they promised to be open with the American people? Where is their openness when it comes to spending cuts and reducing the deficit while at the same time they are talking about increasing the deficit with tax cuts? Some promise, it’s already been broken and we’re suppose to trust them.

F. Sinkwich

October 19th, 2010
1:28 pm

“It’s pretty clear the American people expect us to use the existing gridlock to create compromise and advance their agenda,” said Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.). “They want us to come together [with the administration] after we agree to disagree.”

Wrong, Darrell. You’re not there to compromise with Marxists and socialists. You’re there to restore America. If you don’t understand that, you’ll lose your job to someone who does.

Guy Incognito

October 19th, 2010
1:29 pm

John,

“We are gonna be in charge and will let you know what you need to know and when you need to know it,” is a play on Pelosi’s, “We have to pass the bill before you can find out what’s in it.”

Obviously you need the almighty government to tell you when humor is being utylized so that you can laugh. Oh wait, I’m sure, being a libtard, that you only laugh when the joke is about white, heterosexual, conservative, christian males.

Jefferson

October 19th, 2010
1:41 pm

So why does the GOP have ZERO credibility ?

Ayn Rant

October 19th, 2010
2:24 pm

Don’t raise false hopes, Kyle. No matter which way the midterm elections go, absolutely nothing will change in the federal government. Congress is moribund, entangled in its silly rules of procedure. Congressmen do not follow party platforms regardless of party affiliation; each member devises his own contrary and greedy objectives.

It takes an act of Congress to raise taxes or reduce taxes. It takes an act of Congress to increase government spending or reduce government spending. Nothing worthwhile will be accomplished in Washington in the coming two years.

It doesn’t matter who you vote for; nothing will change.That you can bank on!

JF McNamara

October 19th, 2010
2:34 pm

Compromise, right. So more hardline Republicans than before are now there and they ran on an ideological platform to get there. Plus, they’ve seen Tea Party voters turn on any candidate who did compromise. Its just going to be more block voting. All Republicans will vote the in party lock step just like the last two years. We’re moving towards less compromise, not more.

BW

October 19th, 2010
2:40 pm

Everyone is being played….both parties are playing zero sum games. The narrative was so hyped in 2008 about Obama changed the political process…he failed to do that. Campaigning is much easier than governing. The narrative is now so hyped about Republicans will restore order and reverse the “damage” done to the nation. Last I checked NAFTA was the last nail in the coffin for large scale manufacturing in this nation…combined with the recession related bankruptcies and emphasis on shareholder value, manufacturing will never again be the lighthouse that guided most Americans into the middle class. At some point a decision will have to be made about who this democracy is going to work for….all with drive and preserverance or the few at the top. The GOP has learned what the Democrats learned in exile….nothing. We’ll see what happens once the rubber meets the road. Hopefully people begin to realize that it’s not the people that get elected but the system they enter into after they are elected. Seriously who spends millions just to get a $174,000 rep or senate job…or for that matter a $400,000 job?

songbird

October 19th, 2010
2:42 pm

The Tea Party has voted for candidates with the intelligence level of a sack of doorknobs. Why would anyone with half a brain take them seriously. The Tea Party has made a joke of itself when they could have been a serious movement to rein in government spending.

kitty

October 19th, 2010
2:44 pm

So why does the GOP have ZERO credibility ? from Jefferson at 1:41.

Answer: Because they had six years to reduce the deficit and created Medicare Part D and grew the deficit larger than even the Democrats ever dreamed? GOP speaks with forked tongue. They will cut NOTHING especially not before 2012. They cut SS and Medicare and the elderly contingent boots them. Won’t happen. They will just make things even worse by cutting taxes and make the deficit larger without cutting any spending, but you can’t count on them making a fuss about gay marriage and abortion again. ‘Bout all they are good for….butting into business where they do not belong.

kitty

October 19th, 2010
2:45 pm

Typo… CAN count on them making a fuss about gay marriage and abortion…

Here Spot

October 19th, 2010
2:48 pm

Too bad songbird, kitty. The die has been cast. I suggest you get on board the Right Wing Express!!! CHHOOOO CHOOOOOO!!

BW

October 19th, 2010
2:50 pm

@ Here Spot

LOL…how long do you think this is going to last? Republicans have as many answers are the Democrats…NONE

markie mark

October 19th, 2010
2:51 pm

@ john….

“Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” O’Donnell asked him.

I have heard the sound bite. Also have heard what she meant when she asked that. The Constitution does NOT separate Church and State. The 1st Amendment says congress shall not make laws establishing a national religion, or prevent people from worshiping as they wish. It has been construed over the years by the left and activist courts to strip all religion from government and to mean separation of church and state, I do not, and many conservatives do not, believe this was the intent. Yet the sound bite as made to be as damaging as possible by the excerpt with no chance her reasoning.

Also, I noticed you dont bother to tell that later in the debate she asked Coons what 5 rights were protected in the 1st Amendment. He could only name ONE, his gotcha of “separation of church and state”. He couldn’t name Freedom of Press, Speech, Assembly, etc. So if you want to paint a picture, paint the total picture.

Typical of leftist…..big lie for enough years, it the truth. And then no mention of something that doesnt fit your agenda

Shawny

October 19th, 2010
2:59 pm

Multipoos Rule

October 19th, 2010
3:00 pm

You’re joking right? First thing, they’ll start investigating Obama so they can impeach him. They’ll spend $millions. Next, where are they going to cut spending? Social Security, Medicare, Defense? Yeah right. Republicans are a joke. They are the biggest bunch of whiners a country could ever dream up. Once they get into power, they spend like everyone else. And the whiners just shut up. Because they’re getting rich (see Deal for further explanation).

Allen

October 19th, 2010
3:02 pm

I like the quote from Darrell Issa — who suggested that the Sestak controversy was an “impeachable” offense.

I hope Kyle’s right. But the Republicans will be elected based on stoking populist anger. It’d be quite a trick to then govern based on good-faith compromise.

atlmom

October 19th, 2010
3:07 pm

actually, if the tax increases do come into effect, you can be pretty sure that tax revenues to the treasury will decrease. it may take a year or two for people to adjust their behavior, but it will probably happen.

Actually, anecdotally, it’s happening now…i’ve been hearing that people in small businesses are waiting to see what congress will do before expanding or hiring more people.

songbird

October 19th, 2010
3:08 pm

Here Spot – you’ve been sniffing too much doggie butt.

CJ

October 19th, 2010
3:11 pm

markie mark @2:51 “The Constitution does NOT separate Church and State…[the First Amendment] has been construed over the years by the left and activist courts to strip all religion from government and to mean separation of church and state, I do not, and many conservatives do not, believe this was the intent.

Thomas Jefferson: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

Disgusted

October 19th, 2010
3:12 pm

Sure, the Republicans will compromise. And I’ll be seeing butterflies flying out of my rear end. I’ll give it till May 2011 until talk of shutting the government down gets loud. By June, all those Tea Partiers will be moaning because there are no government workers to process their SS and Medicare claims.

barking frog

October 19th, 2010
3:15 pm

It appears that the President will be comfortable with the
middle road government he will be held to if the
republicans take the house and/or the Senate.
He is pursuing no major legislation and will try to
hold the line on healthcare reform and get reelected.

Mr. Holmes

October 19th, 2010
3:20 pm

“It’s pretty clear the American people expect us to use the existing gridlock to create compromise and advance their agenda,” said Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.). “They want us to come together [with the administration] after we agree to disagree.”

What a load of horse s*it. That’s what Obama’s tried to do since Day 1, but the GOP strategy has been to obstruct, obfuscate, delay, detain and deny. Resistance at all costs. And we’re supposed to believe that winning more seats will suddenly make them *more* amenable to compromise.

I agree with the poster who said the first order of business in a GOP-controlled House will be to launch as many Obama investigations as possible–including an investigation into the birther/citizenship question. They will “find” just enough evidence to drag these investigations out to 2012, passing only enough legislation to keep the torches and pitchforks at bay. Meanwhile, the economy will continue to cough and sputter along, and the new GOP mantra will be that nothing is being done because this **cough cough illegal immigrant cough cough** president is refusing to compromise.

What little respect I have for the GOP is eroding every single day.

BS Aplenty

October 19th, 2010
3:20 pm

At least with a Republican majority in the House and (maybe) the Senate, there will cease to be the ‘cloak and dagger’ bribery that was used to enact ObamaCare. If the Republicans accomplish nothing more than cutting off such dealings and move the country toward fiscal responsibility over the next two years, then they deserve great merit. I think it may be too much to ask them to reduce the deficits near-term but there is opportunity to lay the groundwork for some necessary changes in welfare (why did Obama get rid of the Clinton/Gingrich welfare reform Act?), Medicare, Social Security and elsewhere. I know these are sacred cows, some of them, but the budget deficit will certainly swell when interest rates rise over the next two or three years. There’s some heavy lifting for the country over the next five years.

Jack

October 19th, 2010
3:25 pm

Let me make this perfectly clear – Even though I will vote pretty much a straight republican party ticket, I could give a rat’s putuee about the republican party.

I am very much alligned with the Tea Party, not the republican party, BUT the democrat party candidates offer no viable alternative. I can either vote for republicans who are promising things that are alligned with the Tea Party or I can vote for democrat candidates that are not.

If republicans go back to acting like democrats as they did during the Bush Administration, I hope the Tea Party will become a full fledged third political party in America.

Let me give you an example – if republicans don’t introduce legislation relating to the Fair Tax Plan AND don’t at least get this legislation out of committee with a “do pass” vote, then we will know that republicans are not Tea Party worthy. If they do not get a repeal of the national health care reform law out of committee, then we will know that are liars and typical politicians.

Republicans are going to having a working majority in the House and will have 39-50 Senate seats. We will see if they are taking voters like myself for granted or if they are taking voters like me seriously. I expect them to dump Boehner and the rest of the tired old republican establishment and put in place republican/Tea Party leadership in the House.

markie mark

October 19th, 2010
3:27 pm

CJ…I have seen the quote. Notice the quote is not in the Constitution. Notice that Jefferson was not the only framer. And I have noticed that when the we quote everything from the federalist papers to any other original intent, the left uses the same argument.

Cynthia McKinney Tucker

October 19th, 2010
3:27 pm

The DEMS are imploding!! This is fun to watch!!! This is going to be an unbelievable landslide. We may not witness another election tail-kicking like this in our lifetimes!

CJ

October 19th, 2010
3:30 pm

WSJ: “If they recapture the House, Republicans say they are wary of following the example of the class of 1994, which shut down the government in a standoff with President Bill Clinton.

Once again, the WSJ misinforms its readers. Joe Miller, Lynn Westmoreland, Teresa Collett, Steve King, and other Republican candidates and politicians are promising just that. Michael Steele says, “anything can happen” on the issue of government shutdown, and in right-wing punditry-land, Erik Erikson, Dick Morris, and Newt Gingrich (Father of Government Shutdown) are advocating that Republicans shut down the government. (John Boehner, likely to be the next Speaker of the House, refuses to say one way or the other when asked about the possibility of a shutdown).

In addition, Republicans candidates across the country have been attacking votes to raise the debt limit (while simultaneously seeking to extend tax breaks for the rich worth trillions), and of course, such a vote will come up again in the early part of the next Congressional term.

If their talk is to be believed, the question regarding Republicans and another government shutdown is not if, but when.

Cynthia McKinney Tucker

October 19th, 2010
3:33 pm

We are about to witness the obliteration of an entire generation of DEMS. This is incredible!! This will be the biggest one sided election in 100 years!!!!

markie mark

October 19th, 2010
3:36 pm

CJ, shutting down this government may worry the hell out of you. I, for one, would be happier than hell if we had walked away last time the government shut down, and would feel exactly the same way if we shut this government down. I am proud to say NO when I think what my government is doing is destructive and dangerous. I wish the conservatives (and I want to clarify by saying FISCAL conservative, I do not think of myself as a SOCIAL Christian type conservative)WOULD stick do their guns and shut down the government until both sides on the spending issue would have a reality check.

markie mark

October 19th, 2010
3:37 pm

” thats to their guns”…sorry for the typos

CJ

October 19th, 2010
3:39 pm

The DEMS are imploding!! This is fun to watch!!! This is going to be an unbelievable landslide. We may not witness another election tail-kicking like this in our lifetimes!

Actually, we just witnessed a bigger tail kicking on in 2008. Dems increased their control of the House with something a 39 vote advantage, plus took control of the Senate with 60 votes (once Al Frankin was finally sworn in and until Kennedy passed away). Best case predictions give Republicans something in the neighborhood of 12 vote advantage in the House after the next election and they are likely not to control the Senate. Things could change, but the predicted tail-kicking is likely to be, by recent historical standards, relatively small.

DawgDad

October 19th, 2010
3:41 pm

The Dems have controlled both houses of Congress and the Administration and the mainstream media and most of the lower level Judiciary and 85%+ of the Washinton support apparatus. Yet they are failing. This is an epic historic failure of message, policy, approach, and ability to govern unprecidented in world history, and it begs the obvious question, “Why?”

The answer is simple. They are arrogantly ruling against the will and interests of the majority of the people, in a country founded and sustained on reverence of individual liberty and its constitutional freedoms and limitations on the role of government in people’s lives.

The Dems arrogantly attack any and all opposition with upturned noses and loud public proclamations their opponents are ignorant, racist, sexist, homophobic, bigoted, hate-filled “white trash”. With virtual complete control of the apparatus of government they blame the opposition party for not being bi-partisan, yet they block access to the legislative process and offer only “sign on to our plan or else”.

I’ve got news for them. Their leftist agenda doesn’t fly. I’m not ignorant (MBA). I’m not racist or any of those other nasty ephithets they hurl so audaciously. I’m not voting for them.

I don’t want Republicans to compromise with the leftists, I want conservatives to defeat them and then serve the interests of the people and the country.