I thought we might want to look at this. It is apparent the MSM and the DEMOCRATS ARE GETTING TO BLAME AN IGNORANT ELECTORATE FOR THEIR COMING DEFEAT. Obama has already said that we don’t think well when we are scared. The old clinging to their guns and religion seems to have reappeared after being dispelled by “the One” in 2008. I guess we are more scared now.
The following is a column talking about this. It points out that somehow the PEOPLE WHO AGREE WITH THE LEFT ARE EXPERTS WHILE THOSE WHO DISAGREE ARE IGNORANT. But over and over I see people on leftist boards rail against Bush and Reagan for overspending. Now a BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONSTITUTION should tell you that it is the congress that controls the purse strings and that all spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives. If you want to look at who you should blame for the deficits, you need to look not at the President, but who controlled the congress.
FROM 1995 THROUGH 2006 THE REPUBLICANS CONTROLLED THE HOUSE. During that time they had some surplus years in the budgets, but by and large they were the biggest deficit spenders in history. THEY RAN UP A DEFICIT OF $3.81 TRILLION IN JUST 12 YEARS. That was shameful, but the Democrats not to be outdone, have created a larger DEFICIT IN LESS THAN FOUR YEARS since they retook control. THEIR DEFICIT SINCE JANUARY 2007 IS $5 TRILLION.
The voting public has been chastised for being unappreciative of the good the expert elites of the ruling class have done to them. The experts are expert in all things except realizing that they are not experts.
Perhaps by accident, Joe Klein, "TIME's political columnist and author of six books," made an interesting comment:
“There is something PROFOUNDLY DISEASED about a society that idolizes its ignoramuses and disdains its experts. It is a society that no longer takes itself seriously.”
I would opine that there is something profoundly diseased about a columnist that idolizes his experts when they continually do the wrong thing and end up making things worse. I DON’T THINK THAT COLUMNIST SHOULD BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.
Canada is already going through denial
Here’s an interesting piece. It seems the liberals in Canada have just suffered a defeat and the press and the politicians are going through what I anticipate we will see after next Tuesday. Here is the final paragraph and it says a lot.
Although Canada is far more blessed, even we won’t entirely escape the massive restructuring that faces almost every country in the Western world. The problem is simple. PEOPLE HAVE A LOT MORE GOVERNMENT THAN THEY CAN OR WILL PAY FOR. Mr. Ford and Tea Partiers know that. Scaling down the scope of government is the political challenge of the next generation. AND IF MAINSTREAM POLITICIANS STAY IN DENIAL, THEY’LL BE TOAST.
Obama in 2012?
Here’s an interesting piece on the division in the Democrat Party on whether Obama should be the nominee in 2012. The question is, should this be Hillary’s time?
Democratic voters are closely divided over whether President Barack Obama should be challenged within the party for a second term in 2012, an Associated Press-Knowledge Networks Poll finds.
That glum assessment carries over into the nation at large, which is equally divided over whether Obama should be a one-term president.
A real Democratic challenge to Obama seems unlikely at this stage and his re-election bid is a long way off. But the findings underscore how disenchanted his party has grown heading into the congressional elections Tuesday.
The AP-KN poll has tracked a group of people and their views since the beginning of the 2008 presidential campaign. Among all 2008 voters, 51 percent say he deserves to be defeated in November 2012 while 47 percent support his re-election — essentially a tie.
Among Democrats, 47 percent say Obama should be challenged for the 2012 nomination and 51 percent say he should not be opposed. Those favoring a contest include most who backed Hillary Rodham Clinton's unsuccessful faceoff against Obama for the 2008 nomination. The poll did not ask if Democrats would support particular challengers.
GOP leads Dems in turnout among early voters
On the last day of early voting, Republicans in Colorado solidified their preliminary turnout advantage over Democrats.
In numbers released by the secretary of state's office Friday afternoon, REPUBLICANS HAD CAST NEARLY 53,000 MORE BALLOTS THAN DEMOCRATS. Republicans' turnout rate also continued pulling slightly ahead of Democrats'. In Friday's figures, about 35 percent of registered Republicans had cast a ballot, compared with about 30 percent of registered Democrats.
This is why I see a big victory for the Republicans in Colorado. Buck wins, Tancredo wins, and three formerly Democrat seats (Salazar, Markey, and Perlmutter) go Republican.
Obama: Post Partisan or Most Partisan?
President Obama's post-partisan America has disappeared, replaced by THE POLITICS OF POLARIZATION, RESENTMENT AND DIVISION.
In a Univision interview on Monday, the president, who campaigned in 2008 by referring not to a "Red America" or a "Blue America" but a United States of America, urged Hispanic listeners to vote in this spirit: "WE'RE GONNA PUNISH OUR ENEMIES and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us."
This really isn’t that surprising. Remember his response on January 23, 2009 when Jon Kyle questioned the tax credits for people not paying income tax. He said then “I WON. SO I THINK ON THAT ONE, I TRUMP YOU.”
Where’s the Momentum?
IT CONTINUES TO LIE WITH THE REPUBLICANS. RCP’s Battle for the House in the last three days has had 15 changes. FOURTEEN OF THE CHANGES FAVOR THE GOP AND ONE FAVORS THE DEMOCRATS. Republicans continue of have 163 safe seats out of the 179 seats they now occupy. Democrats have lost two safe seats and are down to 121. If the toss ups are divided equally, the Republicans should pick up 65 seats-- up from 62 three days ago.
This is a wave election and the WAVE IS GETTING BIGGER.
Saturday Musings: 70? Seventy!!
Back over Labor Day at the APSA, I told everyone that I was calling for the GOP to pick up 60 seats in the House, mostly as a way of baiting folks to get the hyper-optimistic and the hyper-pessimistic range. I started to believe the number was possible when Norm Ornstein told me three weeks ago he thought 60 was entirely plausible. Well, this morning I READ THAT STU ROTHENBERG, ONE OF THE STRAIGHT-SHOOTING FORECASTERS ALONG WITH CHARLIE COOK, THINKS THE NUMBER COULD BE 70 OR MORE. Seventy. I'm tempted to make that my new over-under line, but I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that if THE GOP GETS TO 70 IN THE HOUSE, THEY'LL GET THE SENATE, TOO. I still say there is going to be a surprise Democrat loser in the Senate right now that no one is watching, like Gillibrand in New York or Wyden in Oregon (go Jim Huffman!!), though Blumenthal remains my favorite pick for a mediocrity who deserves to lose.