Democrats Will Learn Nothing From Last Week's Shellacking
The cynic in me says that Democrats will learn nothing from the midterm election. They not only took a bath, they were effectively water-boarded by voters.
Democrats lost the House by a margin not seen since 1948. They lost 10 governorships while retaining two -- New York and California. Both states are insolvent and can be expected to ask for bailouts from the federal government, something a Republican House is unlikely to grant. Republicans will get to re-district most states in ways favorable to them for at least the next decade. Nancy Pelosi will step down as speaker, though Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid managed to survive a nose-holding election in Nevada.
While Democrats have complained about lack of cooperation from Republicans in enacting President Obama's agenda, don't look for them to show the way by cooperating with Republicans. The GOP has swept solidly into the House on a wave of voter anger at the elitism and condescension shown by so many Democrats and their big media allies who think the public is stupid because a majority do not agree with the notion of government as savior. Democrats aren't in a cooperating mood, as they usually aren't when they lose. And make no mistake they've lost big. By every measuring stick -- governorships, legislatures, independents, women -- Democrats have lost. Republicans would be crazy to water down what clearly is a mandate to stop the Obama-Reid-Pelosi liberal agenda.
I expect congressional Democrats, in collusion with the White House, to attempt to maneuver Republicans into another government shutdown. It worked before and since Democrats have not had a new idea in years -- or even a good, old idea -- all they know is class warfare, entitlement and grievance.
At his post-election news conference Wednesday, President Obama said many of the things he thought people wanted to hear -- common ground, consensus, working together -- but he steadfastly and perhaps understandably would not cede any territory on his administration's core policies, especially national health insurance. Newly-empowered Republicans aren't likely to compromise, since that usually means they are the only ones doing the compromising, which in the past has led to disgust by Republican voters who don't want watered-down conservatism, but spending reductions and smaller government.
Don't look for President Obama or the Democrats who survived the carnage to admit their policies were wrong, or that they misjudged the public. After so many in the leadership denigrated voters as being insufficiently enthusiastic about all government was attempting to do for them and questioning the smarts and the sanity of those ingrates who don't agree with their policies, I wouldn't expect such people to have a change of heart or mind. That is especially so since the mainstream media can be relied on to question every Republican effort to reverse the policies and spending initiatives of the last two years.
For Republicans the challenge is to maintain their "purity" in an environment that is the political equivalent of a brothel. Both Senators-elect Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, and Joe Manchin, West Virginia Democrat, said in their victory statements that Washington is broken and they are going there to fix it. That reminds me of an old lyric: "It seems to me I've heard that song before. It's from an old familiar score. I know it well, that melody." A little more than two years ago, outgoing (thankfully) Speaker Nancy Pelosi pledged to "drain the swamp" that is Washington. Instead she built a hot tub. It's difficult to change Washington. More often, Washington transforms the reformers. It's the political equivalent of Prohibition. Maybe this bunch will avoid the "speakeasy" Maybe.
(Direct all MAIL for Cal Thomas to: Tribune Media Services, 2225 Kenmore Ave., Suite 114, Buffalo, N.Y. 14207. Readers may also e-mail Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.
- Cal Thomas's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Of course they won't!
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:22pm.
The cynic in me says that Democrats will learn nothing from the midterm election.Of course they won't.
How could they possibly learn anything from people they think are too dumb to understand how wonderful they are?
The main thrust of the
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:29pm.
The main thrust of the democrat agenda for the next two years will be to set traps for the Republicans in order to pit the Tea Partiers against the more mainstream Republicans. They know that the only chance they have in 2012 is to split the Republicans apart.
Straddling the middle
Submitted by KC Mulville on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:52pm.
The Sunday shows were populated with liberals who claimed that it was certain that Americans were rejecting bickering, from both parties.
That doesn't explain why one party got trounced while the other one won huge advances, not only in the House, but in governorships and in statehouses. Look, if the public was equally angry at both parties, they would have expressed it at both. They didn't. What happened is that Democrats reinstated Democrats, Republicans reinstated Republicans, but wherever the fix wasn't in, the public utterly swept out the Democrats.
The other ideological life preserver the liberal pundits held onto was that it's just the economy. What they really want (they claim) is for people in Washington to focus on solving their problems. Now compare that to the fact that most people say that they want smaller government. People who want smaller government do not usually expect that government to "solve their problems." That's precisely what they don't want government to do.
Let me throw this out for consideration.
It wasn't that the people were "sending a message" that they wanted compromise. They don't want government to cooperate to get things done. They want government to stop doing things.
Mail it to Obama, KC
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 5:35pm.
He won't understand it....it's not in his world view.
This whole "it's the economy" thing is absurd on the face.
The message has been sent. If the democrats refuse to accept it, pile on to follow.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Conservatives still claiming
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 1:39pm.
Conservatives still claiming a monstrous victory after falling short of their goals and predictions.
Voters had their chance to hand Congress back to the GOP. But we didn't. While the center appear to decide elections, dedicated liberals, Democrats, and Obamaniacs made certain not to hand over too much power to Republicans.
Still, had certain TP candidates not overtaken their run of the mill republicans in the primaries, the GOP could have taken control of the Senate too. No, the voters have not had enough of liberalism. There are plenty of us left, so don't get too cocky. And don't forget 11/2.
Nah
Submitted by KC Mulville on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 1:58pm.
"dedicated liberals, Democrats, and Obamaniacs made certain not to hand over too much power to Republicans"
?
You mean, liberals controlled this election? They deliberately engineered a loss of 60+ seats?
Yes, while making sure to
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 2:04pm.
Yes, while making sure to keep the Senate in the hands of Democrats. Conservatives pushed their agenda into disinterested states, and spread their wealth a little too thin. California shut them out, as did Delaware and a handful of others.
We're not as dumb as you think.
Obviously....
Submitted by sentry_99 on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 2:43pm.
you are. Especially if you think the Dems were following some grand plan.Interpretations
Submitted by KC Mulville on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 2:46pm.
We're going to have to agree to disagree.
Democrats' interpretation = The Republicans must stop saying no. The Republicans must compromise. The Republicans lost, because they couldn't crack California and New York.
Look, I'm not much for "mandates." If the Republicans want to pass an agenda, they can't say that the people already gave them the OK. The GOP still has to go out and explain what they want to do, and see if the people go for it. They still have to get the people's permission for each thing they want to do. That's how government ought to work.
But to claim that the Republicans failed in this election is desire smacking up against reality.
Republicans did quite well,
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 2:55pm.
Republicans did quite well, but fell short of expectations. Sure, it's easy now to look back and say voters rejected socialism while the American people won an enormous victory, but let's face it - Conservatives won a part, but not the entirety of what they needed to reverse Obama's course.
There is a reality in America that Conservatives continue to deny - liberals are still here, we have a voice and a vote, and we don't feel a simple change in control of our government ensures us a return to halcyon days of past, whenever that may have been.
I don't think so
Submitted by KC Mulville on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 3:29pm.
Conservatives are very much aware that liberals are still here. After all, liberals still hold two thirds of the political branches, not to mention most of the media, and almost all of the academy. And while Obama's agenda was up for review, the presidency wasn't. Even if conservatives had taken the Senate, Obama still has a veto.
Realistically, this victory was never about overturning Obama World immediately. It was only about stopping the fall. The only way to overturn Obama is to elect someone else, and that can't happen until 2012.
You can only claim that they fell short of expectations if you inflated the expectations way beyond reason. Two months ago, taking the House was an exciting possibility. A couple days before the election, when the polls showed a huge wave, that's when people started hoping for more - but only because they saw how huge the wave really was. No one ever realistically thought the Senate was a done deal. So the fact that they took 60+ seats is way beyond expectations.
Looking at Rasmussen's
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 5:59pm.
Looking at Rasmussen's polling history, it shows republicans with a clear lead over democrats in congress dating back to summer of 2009. Suggesting we only knew 2 months ago that the election would swing so drastically in favor of the GOP is not honest.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/...
So yes, I could safely say that with a year and a half lead, expectations fell short, especially as an overall referendum on the democrats agenda.
Dishonest?
Submitted by KC Mulville on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 6:19pm.
Who are you kidding? You're reckoning that since the GOP had "a lead" a year and a half ago means that we should have expected much more than a 60+ seat swing?
This has ceased to be a reasonable conversation.
Not expecting to fool anyone.
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 6:26pm.
Not expecting to fool anyone. Much like I don't expect much respect from anyone here, though it's generally demanded of me.
When you decide my opinions are as valid as yours, we can continue.
Not a question of respect
Submitted by KC Mulville on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 7:26pm.
It's just that when one party wins more seats in the biggest swing in decades, and you suggest that it failed expectations, then we're swimming in the spin instead of the real numbers. It's like saying that if my Eagles win the Super Bowl, I shouldn't celebrate because they didn't cover the point spread. No! They won! What's the real picture here?
Maybe I'm taking it out on you ...
I was away this weekend, and didn't see the normal Sunday shows until I came back last night, and scanned through Real Clear Politics (sorry for plugging another site). What I saw was disheartening. Face the Nation, Meet the Press, and This Week were actively pushing the spin that this election really wasn't a Democrat loss. The people only want the "bickering to stop" and to get government to "solve problems." Even Matthew Dowd on This Week was pushing that line. He's supposed to be the Republican, and he's pushing for more cooperative government. No! It isn't that we want government to solve our problems. We want government to get out of the way. We're trying to get the message through - we don't want government to think they should solve our problems for us.
The contortions I saw on those shows was frightening. That was Beltway Washington trying to block out what the people were trying to say, because they don't like the message. The message is that we don't want them to have more power. We want them to have less. They don't like that. So to push that message away, they're spinning.
KC, I watch very little news
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 7:46pm.
KC, I watch very little news anymore, aside from CNN in the morning (7-8:30 pacific - no morning Joe). I've never watched network news, and was hooked on MSNBC religiously...until Newsbusters. I can neither confirm nor deny the what you have stated about the Sunday shows, because I just don't watch them. In fact, I can barely stand to watch any news, since I have to take a side I shouldn't have to take. As I stand politically as far from you as can be, I imagine our mutual viewings of the other's news preference to be similar. I'm betting your skin crawls when you see the liberal agenda pushed on NBC as mine does with FoxNews.
I have repeatedly stated the GOP did quite well. But I can compare the predictions of NB conservatives, and many of those predictions did fall short. Since Obama was elected it was only a matter of time before congress took a swing back to the right, and most of us have been counting on just that for much of the past 2 years. I mean no disrespect (as I hope you know by now), but these are my thoughts.
I understand
Submitted by KC Mulville on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 9:14pm.
Don't worry, I don't take things personally.
Frankly, if you've caught my posts on similar topics, you'll know that I don't buy the whole idea of "mandates" anyway. If the GOP wants to push a policy, fine, but you still have to go to the people first. You can't say that the election "proves" that they want your policy automatically. After all, if you vote for a guy because he sides with you on 6 out of 10 issues, how can you say that you have a mandate for the other four? And who's to judge whether other people voted for the same candidate for those four issues, but hate your six?
No. You still have to make your case, and if the people want it, then the system works. The Democrats mistake was that they made their case, and the people didn't want it ... but the Democrats pushed it anyway. That's where they lost it. Once the townhalls turned ugly, they should have stopped. Instead, they pushed. That ain't representation.
What I have a problem with
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 1:00pm.
What I have a problem with are those who voted for Obama, but didn't actually think he'd do what he promised during the campaign. Now I'm not talking about working with republicans, because we all know that in this day neither party wishes to work with the other.
I'm talking about Health Care Reform. Obama made this a huge part of his campaign, yet people seem stunned that it actually happened. Why did voters elect Obama if they didn't want reform?
How about the Bush tax cuts? Again, Obama pledged to return the tax code to the days of Clinton. People elected him, and now they're pissed off about it. Huh?
Huh?
I feel the larger issue is that the administration, as well as congress, failed miserably in promoting the benefits of the Obama agenda. So far they've been on the defense entirely, going so far as to distance themselves from the agenda they put forth, rather than justifying the "historic" bills.
LOL
Submitted by KC Mulville on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 1:25pm.
Hard for me to argue ... I didn't vote for the guy, precisely for those reasons! He did what I was afraid he was going to do.
aawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
Submitted by MrShy on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 7:58pm.
Much like I don't expect much respect from anyone here, though it's generally demanded of me.
You poor widdle thing.
- Shy Feels For ACL
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
We need a better class of Shy
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 8:01pm.
We need a better class of Shy here ©
KC...You're an excellent
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 6:30pm.
KC...You're an excellent logician, but you're a bit shaky on your math today. How did you arrive at the 2/3 figure for lib control of government? 1/2 Congress...1/2 Supreme Court...1 President [maybe?]
Jer
Didn't say government - I said political branches
Submitted by KC Mulville on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 6:49pm.
Two thirds control of the three political branches ... House, Senate, White House.
I don't know where I got that phrase, but I've been using it for years, and it captures a category that isn't captured by any other phrase. I realize that there are 2 "branches" there, split up into three "bodies." They're political in the sense that we actually vote for them, and they're filled by politicians running for office, unlike the Court.
Hey, I'm not too old to be corrected. If I'm misusing that phrase, let me know.
KC...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 12:58am.
Well, I suppose in the context of political branches--defined as the Presidency and Congress, the latter consisting of two chambers--you have a point as well as the correct mathematical composition.
I think generally when one speaks of the Constitutinally-based "branches", the assumption is that the reference is to the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial sectors of government--three separate but interrelated bodies which are able to 'check and balance' the power invested in the others.
So, technically you're correct, but it was a bit confusing.
Jer