Clickon WORD oe PDF for full content
Toby Harnden leads with the top ten reasons why Dems lost big.
8. It’s the racism, stupid.
It is the notion that President Barack Obama is not a real natural born American, that he is some other kind of person, that abounds in Tea Party ranks and draws this movement into a pit of no return.
And then there are probably some aspects of the Tea Party that are a little darker, that have to do with anti-immigrant sentiment or are troubled by what I represent as the president.
9. It’s the media’s fault (especially Fox), stupid.
Television seems to exclusively gravitate toward the conflict and whatever is bad, rather than really focusing on the kinds of things that are good and make a difference.
I think under the circumstances that I just described, he’s done an extraordinary job,” Carter said. “He’s got some good things done. They’ve been totally twisted around by some of the irresponsible news media to project him as a person that he’s not and as we all know.
Christopher Hitchens comments on presidential politicking and also the use of polls.
Future chroniclers of the low, dishonest, vacuous campaign of 2010—not only not a single funny placard at the Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert rally but not a single serious one, either, plus the clapped-out crooner and fatwa groupie Yusuf Islam impersonating a potted plant—will certainly puzzle over President Barack Obama’s almost weird refusal to stick up for himself in the middle of his first term. Faced with an extraordinary campaign of defamation on everything from his citizenship to his religion to his paternity (a campaign that was not confined to the “fringe” but that drew both surreptitious and overt support from Republicans as senior as Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich), Obama at times looked almost masochistic in his unreadiness to seize the initiative and give the lie to his detractors. Having many reservations of my own about the president, I would nonetheless have relished the chance to support him in such an effort, as would many of my friends. But one can’t indefinitely do for somebody what he is reluctant to do for himself. And, of course, Obama’s reticence managed somehow to confirm the image of him as a glacial elitist—a man who would hardly deign to pass comment on the rubes and proles.
Making it even worse, however, were the closing weeks of October when the president actually did decide to get in the ring and mix it up a little. First came the rather clumsy attempt to suggest that political money—or, at any rate, Republican political money—was somehow “foreign” in origin. Doesn’t Obama realize that rhetoric like this opens a wider auction—of chauvinist innuendo and fear-mongering over countries like China—which is always going to be won by the isolationists? (It also makes it easy for Republicans to recall truly scandalous launderings of overseas cash, from the Riady group to Roger Tamraz, which are indelibly associated with the same Bill Clinton who was this year’s surrogate tough-guy campaigner for the Democrats.)
Much worse, though, was the president’s remark last week, made on a Univision radio show, in which he expressed disappointment with Spanish-speaking voters who proposed to “sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.’ “…
Jeff Jacoby points out the unions were the big spenders in the election.
WHAT SPECIAL interest is spending the most money to influence the 2010 election? …
…the biggest outside spender is the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, which is pumping almost $88 million into TV commercials, phone banks, and mailings to promote Democratic candidates.
…Every dollar the government pays its employees is a dollar the government taxes away from somebody else. As it is, public employees generally make more in salary and benefits than employees in the private economy: For Americans working in state and local government jobs, total compensation last year averaged $39.66 per hour — 45 percent more than the private sector average of $27.42. (For federal employees, the advantage is even greater.) Which means that AFSCME and the other public-sector unions are using $172 million that came from taxpayers to elect politicians who will take even more money from taxpayers, in order to further expand the public sector, multiply the number of government employees, and increase their pay and perks.
Campaign contributions from public-sector unions, National Review editor Rich Lowry writes, drive “a perpetual feedback loop of large-scale patronage.’’ Not only don’t the unions deny it, they trumpet it. “We’re the big dog,’’ brags Larry Scanlon, AFSCME’s political director. “The more members coming in, the more dues coming in, the more money we have for politics.’’
…The cost of government has soared in tandem with the growth in public-sector unions — and those unions make no bones about their reliance on politics to enlarge their wealth and power. “We elect our bosses, so we’ve got to elect politicians who support us and hold those politicians accountable,’’ AFSCME’s website proclaims. “Our jobs, wages, and working conditions are directly linked to politics.’’ That is exactly the problem. …
In the WSJ, Matthew Kaminski interviews another Republican rising star, Florida’s newly elected Senator Marco Rubio. The Dems prayed for Rubio’s defeat and tried various strategies to derail him since a high visibility GOP Hispanic is feared by them. Witness their disgusting filibuster of Miguel Estrada early in W’s administration.
…Something else accounts for Mr. Rubio’s rise from a blip in polls against the popular governor in his party, to the runaway favorite tomorrow. He appealed as a different sort of Republican. He kept his pitch upbeat, shunned personal attacks, worked hard to widen support without apologizing for his conservatism, and more noticeably than anyone in this race ran on an unabashed and constantly invoked faith in American exceptionalism.
…His response stayed in campaign character. He didn’t call out any of the antagonists by name and repeated everywhere that “this story” showed what’s wrong with insider Washington politics. His rallies are largely free of common GOP swipes at Obama, Pelosi and Reid. It’s mostly earnest talk of governing philosophies and America’s virtues. …
…”The only privilege that I was born with was to be a citizen of the greatest nation in human history,” he tells a breakfast crowd of supporters at the Original Pancake House in Palm Beach Gardens. “What makes America great is that anyone from anywhere can accomplish anything.” The Obama agenda puts this unique inheritance in jeopardy, he says. Yet he keeps it all upbeat, inclusive, and to many people who see him in person, Reagan-esque. …
Jennifer Rubin tells the Republicans it’s time to earn the votes they received.
…Rather than make predictions (OK, if you insist – 74 in the House and nine in the Senate), I thought some suggestions for the winners and losers might be in order. For the White House, which may be the biggest loser of them all, this is the time to shift tone and act presidential. Some sincere reflection and admission of their failure to address the voters’ concerns (about debt, bailouts, spending) would signal some much-needed maturity.
For the new GOP House leadership and the expanded GOP Senate caucus, modesty and circumspection is in order. No matter how big the victory, the voters’ message is not that they have “permanently” shifted to the GOP or that the GOP has proved itself as the party of good governance. Shifts are never permanent, and the governance skills have yet to be demonstrated. And whether the new leadership suspects that Obama’s presidency is kaput or not, it is unseemly and unwise to celebrate the demise of a presidency after only two years. (If David Brooks’s sampling of GOP officials is accurate, there is hope in this regard. He observes, “This year, the Republicans seem modest and cautious. I haven’t seen this many sober Republicans since America lost the Ryder Cup.”) …
In Forbes, Paul Johnson has an interesting article on Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to Great Britain.
Whom would you call the world’s best salesman? At present I would nominate Pope Benedict XVI.
In September the Pope carried out a four-day state visit to Britain, which was the most successful event of its kind that I can remember. Yet it began under the very worst auspices. There were complaints the visit was unnecessary and wasteful. Both taxpayers and Catholics were made to fork out heavily for police protection. A combination of atheists and homosexual activists threatened disruption and embarrassing incidents. All the main events were for ticket-holders only, with many tickets still unsold on the eve of the Pontiff’s arrival. Much of the media showed itself to be cold, skeptical or downright hostile.
As it turned out, the visit struck and sustained a note of calm and genial triumph. The demonstrators were ignored–except by the Pope, who prayed for them. All the events were thronged, especially by young adults, who showed by their simple enthusiasm that religion is still a living excitement for them. The Pope had done his homework well, and each of his short discourses was exactly suited to the event and clearly hit home with his audiences. …