« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Point – Doubling Down on Freedom

Much will be made about last night’s election. Massive Republican gains across the board will properly be celebrated by some, but countered by others who think those gains might have been more if we’d just chosen the “right” candidates.

You see, to some in the Washington establishment – only they are smart enough to know who the right candidate is. We must have candidates who “can win,” they say. They will focus on Senate races in Colorado, Nevada and Delaware, in particular, as examples of candidates gone wrong. Of course, in so doing, they will gloss over those conservatives who shook the establishment to its core en route to victory, such as Mike Lee in Utah, Marco Rubio in Florida, Rand Paul in Kentucky and Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania.

But all of this completely misses the point.

The point is that the Washington establishment does not get to decide who we send to Washington to represent us, and it’s not enough to be a Republican, you must actually believe in the Constitution and limited government.

Of course, it is hardly surprising that in the face of massive establishment resistance and on the back of a Senate Republican Conference that never defined what it actually stood for, some of the insurgent “upstarts” fell short. And yes, in the end, we didn’t get everything we wanted last night. But, it’s ok. Do you realize what we’ve accomplished here? We picked up huge numbers of seats across the country and in the process, we’ve added a number of real conservatives to the mix. We’ve advanced the cause of liberty – and we’ve sent a message that this was only the first step of many more to come. It takes hard work to move the ball, and we’ve done it.

And now, we turn to the future by ignoring the establishment calls for pragmatism and the need to “vet” candidates,” and instead, we double down on freedom.

As we look forward, it is a total misreading of a few close losses last night to suggest that a conservative “can’t win” in one state or district vs. another. It’s a false choice and mistakenly suggests that we must somehow calibrate the appropriate level of “conservativeness” for every race in the nation. How is that possible? Do you believe in the Constitution or not? Do you believe in freedom or not? Do you want to cut the size and scope of government or not?

Some have suggested that Republicans are now, in essence, on “probation.” Marco Rubio, I believe, suggested that this represents a “second chance,” for Republicans. This is correct.

Republicans have a chance to demonstrate that they actually want to reduce the size and scope of government and to stop the madness that has for too long defined the “leadership” coming from Washington. Republicans have a chance to prove that they are worthy of our trust.

If they do not, they will face opposition and a primary challenge. And we begin now. Erick posted a list earlier today of the current Senators up in 2012. These incumbents do not get a free pass. There will be a new crop of limited government conservatives who are willing to step to the plate and challenge these folks as needed – and they should.

COMMENTS

  • talgus

    the Reid victory. This is proof that the left can do with UNLIMITED funding. Harry’s victory over Sharon keep money out of many other races. Money and Unions are formidable. The way is to feed those that really don’t like the way union bosses steal their funding and spend it on politics. Totally un-American. More like Stalinist.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      Their wins in CA and NV were vastly expensive.

    • audax
  • mboyle1988

    This election was a repudiation of the tea party and Sarah Palin in particular. Conservative Republicans consistently won. Tea Partiers consistently lost or at least under-performed their polling. Even Nikki Haley almost lost.

    Jane Norton should have been the nominee in Colorado. Tarkanian or Lowden should have been the nominee in Nevada (if Lowden hadn’t blown that stupid Health Care question, she would have been the nominee).

    That Ken Buck lost is absurd. He lost to a highly unpopular incumbent without Reid’s infrastructure and years of experience in a swing state that was poised to reward Republicans this year.

    • SteveLA

      mboyle1988

      If this race showed anything, it’s that the raw material of a candidate counts, is she/he a person with a record of accomplishment and skill in life that makes voters what to support them? You can argue that those who lost suffered a loss at the hands of the voters because they were flawed in some way that much might be right, but hanging the personal shortfalls of those who lost on Governor Palin is a bit much.

    • pdawk

      The tea party essentially handed us the huge gains in the house and perhaps more importantly swung state legislatures our way that hadn’t been in play since before the civil war. Palin plays well in some areas and helped to turn out the vote and get the base stirred. That can’t be understated when you are talking about a midterm election.

      The problem wasn’t with the tea party, it was with the candidates themselves. There was such a fervor amongst the base to go anti-establishment, no one bothered to look into their insurgent candidates background. Sharon Angle, Joe Miller and Christine O’Donnell would have never survived a primary if they had been front-runners from the beginning. Their dirt would have been dug up and they would have been pounded on it.

      The good news is that even though at times the cart was put before the horse, the message was sent. You better be ready to cut spending and reduce deficits or you will not make it to November. Hopefully now that we have a good 12 months, we can find ourselves a cadre of Rubio’s to take us to the next level.

      Now I will say we will have a whole new set of problems if Palin makes a move for President. That discussion however can be saved for another day.

      • uselogic

        Being a part of the tea party movement (little t, little p) AND a conservative Republican, I’d say the support we gave the Republican Party’s candidates was a BIG part of yesterday’s wins. In Florida we did very, very well.

        Nationally, I know there were some hits and some misses. You’ve got to expect that from a truly grassroots movement that even included registered Democrats and independents in its ranks Trust me, as these regular folks get more acclimated to the political process, they will do a better job in selecting and supporting candidates. There are more Marco’s to come. The tea party movement is a good thing for conservative Republicans. Less so for those who prefer “business as usual”.

    • hertfordkc

      must be able to say they will reduce the size and scope of the federal government, get rid of earmarks, balance the budget and adhere to the Constitution. Otherwise, they are still signing up to push the bus over the cliff, which is much too close for comfort. (See “Chinese Professor.)

    • SpL

      I think the tea party will turn around and vote against Republicans if needed. No matter what they say the Dems are watching them closely and will appeal indirectly next time. I am willing to bet Independents and some Democrats simply voted anti-establishment which created the “wave”. Palin did not look repudiated when I saw her on tv.

    • davesinsanantonio

      Sometimes it is the winner who won. From what I heard in Nevada it was the union money and get out the vote effort, as well as a sentiment that Harry had too much power to do things for Nevada to replace him with a newcomer. So, don’t blame Angle for losing what might not have been winnable at all.
      Besides, do you want people running who stand for what is right, or someone “who can win” who will vote with the enemies of freedom???

    • etlib

      On non-conservative republicans like mboyle1988 who don’t support conservative candidates. I don’t buy this “blame the candidate” game coming from those who down played the candidates from the beginning. If non-conservative republicans had supported these candidates and they lost anyway then maybe I’d think otherwise.

    • MF

      Not all Tea Party candidates won. Most of those Tea Party losses were either not winnable (Reid – see explanations below re: union money and their forced GOTV), a candidate who hadn’t been vetted fully enough, or a torpedoing effort from NRSC (Miller/Murkowski, depending on who wins that).

      But not all NRSC, non-Tea Party candidates won in winnable races, either. Notice that the Tea Party favorite in the CA Senate race, Chuck DeVore didn’t make it through the primary, so the more mainstream, NRSC-backed, non-Tea Party candidate Carly Fiorina, ran against the oh-so-beatable Babbler Boxer. Fiorina didn’t win, either.

  • audax

    FREEDOM!!!! We need more of it! Now on to 2012!

  • reno_dave

    1) Union influence in the voting

    2) Some irrational fear, stoked by Reid’s ads, that losing his clout in DC would be bad for Nevada, i.e., that clout would reduce federal funds

    3) Internal division within the Republican ranks. More “moderate” Republicans, who had worked with Angle in the legislature and who didn’t like her, banded together with Republican politicians who wanted Reid’s support, i.e., Washington money, and formed “Republicans for Reid”, undercutting what should have been some of her support.

    4) Nothing but negative ads from Sharron’s campaign. She beat Reid in the debate, and does well in front of a crowd, because her demeanor belies the “extreme” view presented by Reid. Part of the reason she won th small counties is because she could meet many of the voters in those counties.

    She should have added some positive messaging to her ads, preferably with her talking to the voters, to counter that view of her being extreme and excite more Republicans and Independents to come out for her. She lost Washoe county, where Republicans actually outnumber Democrats, but only got about 65% turnout.

    Ads like I suggest might have reduced the number of people (over 16,000) who voted for “None of these candidates”. Those folks might have voted for Angle.

    5) No organization ran ads (as best as I can tell) that explained that Scott Asjian was a phony Tea Party candidate. I think the campaign and other organizations just figured that everyone who mattered already knew. Therefore, nearly 6000 people voted for Asjian.

    Given more time, I could probably come up with another two or three.

    IMO, we Nevada Republicans did a better job of organizing at the precinct and county level this year than in 2008 (when we were unprepared for the Democrat and ACORN onslaught,) but we’re still building our all volunteer organization, compared to the union support that Reid received and the paid help from the DSCC.

    Hopefully, we’ll continue to improve our efforts and do better in 2012.

    • reno_dave

      1) Sharron lives in Reno, which is in Washoe County.

      2) She lost Washoe by 7000 votes.

    • Doc Holliday

      The GOTV effort was lacking, but like I have said before, we can’t compete with the left on that. The reason is simple, we are not willing to threaten, cajole, and physically make people show up at the polls and vote the “right way”. It is just not who we are.

      Either way, there SHOULD be a lot of blame to go around. The Republicans needed this, when you must have something, you fight ’til the last dog dies. Yes we had a good night, but it could have been better.

      I am reminded of the line from Field of Dreams. The character got one chance at bat and never had another chance. He said:
      “I thought there would be other times, but what I did not know was that this was the only time”.

      It is like war, if you are going to wage it, you MUST win, if not, don’t wage it.

      Another example, if we had taken say 5 percent of what was spent on Meg Whitman (and many other high profile losers), we could probably have pulled off 5 more House seats easily. yes that is Monday morning quarterbacking, but the point is as great as the win was, it could have been better. And as bad as the Dems got beat, it could have been a lot worse. They won the races they decided had to be won.

    • mikefrey

      The case MUST BE MADE (not to conservatives, we already believe), but to Joe 6-pack, that his interest is better served not by bringing home the goodies or pork, but by the strength of his state’s and our nation’s finances and business climate. I think we need to coin a term here, something that will succinctly capture economic health, business friendliness, and innovative nimbleness.

      Leadership is needed to make the case that by giving up the federal cookie jar, we will be much better able to buy cookies, steak, or whatever it is that does it for us.

      We, as conservative leaders must take the lead in redefining this – otherwise Joe says No.

      • mikefrey

        And if we couldn’t make the case AND execute – we don’t deserve to take away Joe’s federal cookie jar!

        Our philosophy is better for Joe only if we can articulate it and execute it.

        • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com Beaglescout

          The studio audience lifeline in Who Wants to be a Millionaire had an accuracy rate of 95% or better. Groups of people get things right. Groups of people are smart. This principle is used in a technique called crowdsourcing, and it works in the economy too. For some reason Democrats, communists, and other progressives don’t think this principle, in which they believe, works in the economy. But it does.

          The alternative is to let a government consensus-seeking team manage what happens in the economy. This practically guarantees the answer will be the same it was last time, even if it was wrong. While crowdsourcing depends on the fact that the best answers will make it through the process, consensus decision-making lets the pabulum answers through.

          What should we call the free market to make it appeal to people? Is the free market a good enough term by itself, or should we simply call it freedom? Freedom will sell if you make it clear you’re talking about individual freedom to make your own decisions, take responsibility for your results, and keep what you earn by the sweat of your own brow. Lefties will pretend you are talking about the freedom of big companies to rake people over the coals or to pollute and abandon their responsibilities. But that isn’t freedom. They are taking about bad behavior that is correctly seen as law breaking. If the law is enforced equally for all then law-breaking by corporations, or by government for that matter, is not a problem.

          We could call it the invisible hand of the free market, or the rule of law, or some other antiquated expression. Do we need a focus group to come up with new twists?

          One thing I’ve been thinking of writing is a new series of short (no more than 30 seconds each) apologetics for conservative ideas. They would be used as a kind of elevator speech answer to questions and questioners who challenge conservative principles.

          • davesinsanantonio

            to get a government handout without having to work for it. What those lazy voters do not understand is that “any government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take away all you have”. And, those “antiquated expressions” will still work if they are explained adequately–that is why we still use them.
            So, if you do go with the suggested series, make it clear, simple, and (if possible) witty. Thirty seconds can be a short time or a long time, depending on what you do with it. Do some marketing research–if each segment generates lots of questions, then change it. If it generates lots of examples, then go with it. If your panel can come up with examples, so can the average viewer, and they will stick in their minds when the Left tries to argue against your clips. Good luck and hope to see a lot of such in the near future.

          • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com Beaglescout

            That sounds about right.

        • Robert Allen Leeper

          http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Harvard-study-shows-earmarks-cost-jobs-95637114.html

          Everybody thinks pork helps the recipient state at the expense of other states. or that it’s like getting your share – or as much as you can get – of a limited supply of cookies. Joe is hard to convince if that’s what it is. He agrees that it would be better if no one did it, but if others are going to, he wants his share. The article discussed in the editorial linked above suggests that the cookies are tainted.

          • mikefrey

            There is data to back up our positions, but Joe doesn’t have it, won’t read it, etc. How do we “Reaganize” this to get the points across in an easy way?

            Right now Joe is receptive to new arguments, because he sees that gov isn’t getting the right results, but we aren’t satisfying his need for an alternative argument.

            This is what I want to fix. I want Joe to stop asking his congressman to bring home goodies, and start demanding that his congressman embody the principles of small government with limited power. Once the people want this, it will be a lot easier to make it happen.

            PS1) Was this article something you had seen before, or were you able to look for and find it based on concept. (I’m trying to learn how to research this material).

            PS2) Most of my posts today got duplicated. Not sure if this one will. Can someone tell me why clicking “post comment” once leads to duplicate posts?

          • Robert Allen Leeper

            I just looked again at the study. I didn’t see much of an explanation of the mechanism of the depressing effect of new federal spending on local business, and I think you might need that to construct a good argument for political use.

          • Robert Allen Leeper

            I just looked again at the study. I didn’t see much of an explanation of the mechanism of the depressing effect of new federal spending on local business, and I think you might need that to construct a good argument for political use.

            http://www.people.hbs.edu/cmalloy/pdffiles/envaloy.pdf

    • Dave_in_Fla

      I firmly believe that one of the reasons Rick Scott eeked out a win in Florida is that he went up with positive ads in the final 2 weeks, while Sink continued the negative ads and the defense ads. This reversed the likability factor that was Sink’s biggest asset in the race.

  • california_red

    despite the success across the nation, I am depressed this morninig. Facing financial catastrophe of unfunded public pensions, we decided to elect the man that gave public employees collective bargaining power and who promised not to enforce our border. And then we eliminate the 2/3rds majority required to pass a budget, which was the only thing giving Republican’s in Sacramento a voice. Plus, we elected a complete slate of Democrats for statewide office, including a failed mayor for Lt. Gov, and a DA who won’t enforce the death penalty. I haven’t even gotten to Boxer yet, or the failure in several districts that had the possibility of flipping to R.

    All in all, I think CA last night said “We are all in with the unions. Forget about private industry and business. What matters most is that the public employee gravy train be sustained. Reform is for suckers. CA has big government all figured out thank you very much.”

    The only silver lining I see is that it should be impossible to blame the looming catastrophe and collapse on the Republicans. I guess my job for the immediate future is to make sure they own it.

    • Dave_in_Fla

      That state is doomed, and too self absorbed to do anything about it. Even Greece is more mature.

      The writing is on the wall, if you live in CA and stay, you are taking a significant personal risk.

      • IJB

        (I figure I can outlast these hippy potheads – like zombies, I just have to outlast ‘em!! ;) )

  • Oz

    Okay. One of the things that I am seeing is that Tea Party candidates with no prior record can win in the “people’s” house, but that people take the resume of a Senate candidate a lot more seriously at least in swing states.

    Rand Paul and Lee in Utah ran in conservative states so all they had to really do was win the primary and not screw up.

    In Nevada, Colorado, and Deleware, I just think we didn’t have candidates who were strong / had strong resumes.

    The good news is down the road, perhaps some of our new crop of House Tea Party congressmen can become a Senator (probably after two terms or so).

    • HaroldHutchison

      Imagine, for instance Lieutenant Governor-elect Jennifer Carroll running against Bill Nelson in Florida…

      • uselogic

        That’d totally work!

      • Robert Allen Leeper
      • Martin Knight

        Long time no see …?

  • belcatar

    mboyle-

    I don’t see it as a repudiation of the tea party. I think the whole election was a result of congressional reps and Senators who simply weren’t listening to the people.

    The Tea Party had a number of resounding victories, at least as many as the losses you described. We had Paul LePage up here in Maine. He wasn’t even supposed to win the primary. And there was Marco Rubio down in Florida, Rand Paul in Kentucky…that’s at least three people backed by the Tea Party right there. I might be mistaken, but I think Pat Toomey is popular with the Tea Party too. On that I could certainly be wrong, but I was under that impression.

    We’ll have to make a decision when it comes to selecting candidates, I think. Do we want political experience to play a large factor in our choice, or are we looking for people with good character who share our beliefs in how we think the country should be run?

    It does sting to have lost some of the close ones, but I think it’s better to risk defeat with a principled candidate than be disappointed when a “Republican” gets soft and helps the statists.

    • eastbaylarry

      Do we want political experience to play a large factor in our choice, or are we looking for people with good character who share our beliefs in how we think the country should be run?

      The character is critical, but some political experience is at least helpful also. Several commenters here have pointed out the experience, especially for Senators, is critical to getting ‘Joe 6-pack’ to believe in a candidate and I agree with that thought.

      Business experience is also good, especially if the candidate was *not* responsible for out-sourcing thousands of jobs, but an actual polical voting record makes for a portrait of a candidate’s actual political behavior that can be examined in detail and debated in forums such as this one.

      • belcatar

        I guess I was thinking along the lines of political experience being a corrupting factor…for example Randall “Duke” Cunningham, the Vietnam fighter ace who ended up losing his integrity. There are plenty of examples of this on both sides.

        I’m sure there are a lot of good people who would make great public servants, but don’t want any part of the seedy, dark underbelly of political life.

        If we could find candidates who have gone through the political wringer and still maintained their values and integrity, we’d have some pretty strong candidates.

  • juumanistra

    Let me be blunt: The baying at the blood moon for a pogrom against the GOP establishment is needlessly self-destructive and will, at the end of the day, solve nothing.

    Candidate quality is important. That’s the big lesson of last night for the GOP: The Tea Party candidates who were, by traditional metrics, good candidates did well, while those who were not had rougher outings than they were expecting. The way you guarantee candidate quality is via vetting, either by the GOP itself or through the process of a primary. Reasonable folks can disagree about whether state and national parties ought to be digging and endorsing candidates in the primaries (though I suspect we’d both agree that they shouldn’t be endorsing them), but I also think we can all agree that state parties have an interest in vetting to make sure their standard-bearer doesn’t have a record of going on cable television and pontificating about the masturbation.

    The establishment and the grassroots both have their own critical roles to play in a functioning polity. The establishment needs some sense knocked into it for both having lost its way and for having adopted a whole slew of bad electoral practices. But to “double down on freedom” is counterproductive, as it ignores the fact that the establishment usually has a point in its objections to various Tea Party candidates. (How valid and how much of a point, of course, vary from case to case.)

    • powertothepeople

      or at least care for the way people on here use it. Way too many define it as someone who has been in politics for a certain amount of years which is incorrect. I would say more on here are against RINOS rather than establishment. DeMint is establishment as he has been in politics for years, but he is by no means a RINO. People just misuse the word.

      But I do agree with you that in 2012 we need to concentrate more on viable conservatives rather than only conservatives. In my state, my conservatism is accepted but would be shunned in CA. We have to learn the difference and accept that certain areas will not change overnight and will not vote way to the right in one election. We lost some seats because of poor candidates, some who would not have won in other areas either do to their baggage. So you are correct in needing to get quality candidates who fit the area they are in.

      • juumanistra

        RINO is tossed around entirely too much, as well. To the point it’s basically meaningless and has become something of a residual catch-all epithet for folks who are insufficiently conservative for the user’s taste. Now then, this might be my own bias showing through as a member of that decrepit organization known as the Delaware GOP, but I always thought the term applied those Republicans of the Nelson Rockefeller breed, who lost the battle for the soul of the Republican Party in 1980, and who were slowly going extinct due to eroding demographics in their natural habitats of New England and New York. I’m not sure I’d have ascribed the title to Mike Castle: His views were at times more than a little heterodox, but never seeming to rise to the standard of…oh, Lincoln Chafee. But one competitive primary later, and BAM!, that’s how he’ll forever be remembered in the minds of many. (Glad to see him out of the door, personally, as cap-and-trade was the policy Rubicon in my eyes. But I also know I’m rather neurotic about energy policy and my views aren’t shared by all.)

        I suppose what underlies all of this is the fact that the activist Right needs to have a long, long debate about, exactly, conservatism is. As we need some manner of sorting algorithim for prioritizing ideological criteria. What principles are sacrosanct to the cause? (“Limited government and the Constitution!” are a sound place to start, but there are myriad ways to pursue the former and interpret the latter. Sufficient to make the rallying cry rather vapid as anything other than a foundation for further debate.) What heresies against conservatism will be tolerated? (Both on big issues — e.g. would Mike Castle’s support for cap-and-trade be bearable were he rationalizing it under, say, some manner of tax reform that instituted a flat tax, gutted the major deductions and loopholes, and abolished the corporate and capital gains taxes? — as well as on smaller issues, such whether support for robust government-sponsored crop insurance or agnosticism on abortion, under the rubric of the Tenth Amendment, are tolerable.)

        Such a fight would be protracted, bloody, and probably leave more than a few folks dissatisfied. But better being able to differentiate and categorize the policy differences between Republican candidates, I think, is essential to promoting a more conservative government in general. But these’re just the ramblings of one of the policy-oriented members of the coalition.

        • powertothepeople

          with the premise. While I will agree that some on our side do abuse the word RINO, reality is most are able to recognize a RINO a mile away. They are the ones who constantly break their word, do not stand for the convictions they pandered the vote with, tend to always talk about partisanship when none should be worked for, and tend to vote democrat as much if not more than they do the party line.

          We know what conservatism is, we do not need to define it. There are variants when you start to get into social issues, but conservatism at its core is treating the constitution as an intricate part of our way of life that does not need to be changed, fighting for less government, less spending, lower taxes, protection of our rights, and so on. Where you start having some difference is social conservatism but most on the right tend to set aside differences on those issues if the person they are looking to vote for has stood strong for fiscal conservatism. But what you tend to get on our side is either fiscal and social conservatives or fiscal and social moderates/liberals. There are a few exceptions, but that is the general rule.

          • juumanistra

            I suppose what I’d very much like to see is a big intellectual tug-of-war with the GOP to flesh-out the standard platitudes we ascribe to conservatism. For instance, conservatism stands for the protecting of Americans’ constitutional rights. We can all agree on that. But to what degree? Are we to read the Bill of Rights textually? If so, then the more libertine elements of the GOP coalition will be most displeased, because the Fourth Amendment as written provides a relatively narrow right to privacy. Or do we hang the hat of our libertine comrades on the Tenth Amendment, and hope that a court reads it as a straight-jacket upon the federal government? What about the cavalcade of liberty interest-derived rights of the Fourteenth Amendment? I suspect most on our side consider the right to travel sacrosanct, but it’s wholly an invention of the Supreme Court. Or, perhaps, we should liberally read the Constitution: The problem is that we get…well, the chance to produce most of the most hated jurisprudence of the Warren Court. Or maybe we should play the role of Goldilocks, trying to find the right blend of textualism and liberality so that it’s just right, though that can well lead to O’Conner-esque hair-splitting. No matter which you’re sympathetic to in this particular context, you’re left arguing and debating trying to hash out a governing philosophy from a platitude.

            I came into the GOP coalition at the ripe ol’ age of 19, casting my first vote for Dubya’s second term. The GOP styled itself as the party of ideas: It was, and still is to my mind, the bearer of that title. But somewhere along the way in the past decade, we stopped engaging the big ideas of policy and governing philosophy, and descended first into crass gaming for political advantage and then, following electoral catastrophe, bouts of angry populism intermixed with us-against-them-ism with the grassroots and powerbrokers of the GOP. All things intellectual and wonky have their place at the table, I should hope, and I hope I’m doing my part to nudge the good fight forward by trying to start this particular conversation.

          • Robert Allen Leeper

            treatment of new arrivals and visitors (as far as a quick and dirty search shows.) In Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999), Stevens addressed the source of the right of ingress and egress but came up with essentially nothing.

            It seems obvious to me that a person prevented by a state from leaving would be entitled to a writ of habeas corpus (a common law remedy recognized in the Constitution, AI, s9). Should a state be able to prevent entry by certain classes of people (who are US citizens)? I have mixed feelings, but I don’t expect it to come up.

          • davesinsanantonio

            are in the Ninth Amendment. And, states trying to keep other out should be covered in the “equal protection” part of the Fourteenth.

    • SpL

      Lord knows it has been tried many times – and failed.

  • http://www.practicalstate.com Bloggy Bayou

    http://www.practicalstate.com/?p=3139

    Cheers

  • johnt

    He and his “brain trust”, barf, can’t figure out what happened, despite signs painfully obvious, blather about a need to get on the trail again and get the message out. What else is the dope good at?
    This is not the time and he is not the person to compromise with, the shoe is on the other foot, no “reaching across the aisle”.

    • izoneguy

      for dictators in waiting……

      Did you see what the Feds did today?

      Fed Will Buy Another $600B in Treasurys, Holds Rates

      http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/11/03/fed-leaves-rates-unchanged-buy-b-treasuries/?test=latestnews

      This is just printing money to prop up the so called “recovery”…..
      I hope a Republican controlled house can start nipping things like this in the bud…..

  • runner12

    I am so tired of hearing people bash the Tea Party, bashPalin, and bash the candidates on this site. While I am convinced that some of them are trolls, some are genuine and unfortunately they are already buying into the Dem and elite GOP spin and it is only Nov. 3rd!
    No one is saying that we cannot learn from some of our errors. No one is saying that we should not ensure that our candidates are fully vetted. But vetting does not mean trading in principle for political expediency.
    I am 100% confident that we can find candidates who embrace the Tea Party ideals heart and soul and who do not have baggage a mile long. But we are a new movement and fortunately our errors did not derail us or really hurt us that bad. Winning the Senate would not have changed who is in the White House. Give me the governor wins any day. I think we need to celebrate our victory, learn from our mistakes, and stay true to our principles and not back down an inch. Anyone who tells us any different is rooting for us to fail. You can take that one to the bank.

    • Zaber

      I personally am not a fan of Palin – I think she can do some great things for our party, but I don’t want her as our candidate for the White House in 2012.

      However, that said, I will say not a bad word about her. Everyone is allowed their opinions, and a lot of the much more senior people here will say the things that will sway people one way or another with her, should she choose to try a run in 2012, and they will do it much more eloquently that I, without being negative (Erick, Vassar, Ace, etc). There will be enough of us regular folks that will go negative or way positive, and I don’t have any intention of cluttering up that space by being negative. :)

  • Dave_in_Fla

    Much of the commentary I have seen about finding “good” candidates today has not had anything to do with adherence to principle. It has been about finding candidates that know how to run a campaign and execute in all phases.

    Angle was a good fund raiser, a tireless worker, an ok debater, and pretty poor at executing a ground game against the unions.

    Rubio would very likely beaten Reid.

    Neither of those statements question the core values of the individuals, they just illustrate the Rubio is a better candidate when looking at the fundamentals of execution.

    In the end, the losses in Nevada, Colorado, and West Virginia was due to poor execution, which ultimately is the candidate’s responsibility. Blaming the establishment for the losses misses the point. Rubio executed a flawless campaign with the the same lack of support from the establishment. He had 1/3rd of Angle’s money in a state 6 times as big.

    By all means, we need to choose principled candidates, meaning no more Mike Castles. But I don’t think it offends anyone’s principles to try and find more Toomey’s and Rubio’s and less Angle’s and Rease’s.

    • juumanistra

      While I wholeheartedly agree with your thrust, I’d like to pick a nit or two. First and foremost, I think we make a mistake in focusing too heavily on Marco Rubio. This is not to demean Rubio in the slightest, for he is a man of a thousand political talents, and he deserves every ounce of praise he gets. But it is precisely because he is such an exceptional politician that he is a poor paragon, because very few other politicians are skilled or rock-ribbed as he. I think Toomey’s probably a better light, as the man’s got some cudgels lying around which the opposition can beat him with, but still can go forth, fight the good fight, and win. (My heart sank the first time I caught sight of the DSCC’s commercial using the clip of Toomey saying out-sourcing was a good thing. While I agree entirely with it, given how three decades of industrial consolidation has ravaged big swathes of PA, I was sure it would be a major hit for the Dems.)

      A second nit? Sometimes, even in the best of years, things slip away. Jesus himself, I suspect, couldn’t have carried CA against the sheer preponderance of Democratic superiority or WV against the most popular governor in the nation. I just don’t think Raese deserves to be lumped with Angle in the “questionable candidate to be avoided” pile: He had a different mountain to climb that was of a quite different nature, after all. We can relegate him to the ash heap of history if he makes another bid for large public office and loses badly against an opponent who isn’t benefiting from 70% approval ratings and 100% name recognition. (Like, say, the race for the WV governor’s mansion Senator-elect Manchin is vacating.)

      …though I guess this particular addendum didn’t turn out so tiny after all, did it?

      • IJB

        This is a consistent pattern I’ve noticed in politics – run for office too many times, with too many losses, and you’re never going to win another race.

        For example, I’m pretty sure Bob Dold won IL-10 simply because Dan Seals was considered a “three time loser”.

        If we had run Mike Sodrel in IN-09 again, I feel confident that we would *not* have beaten Baron Hill.

        Etc.

        I think one of Raese’s problems is that he had run for statewide office in WV one too many times. It’s hard to know if Shelley Moore Capito would have done better in WV this year, but I suspect she would have done better than 43%…

        • juumanistra

          I admit, I wasn’t following WV’s Senate battle as closely as I should have been. …or all that closely at all, it would seem. Can’t remember why I thought this was Raese’s first crack at statewide office. Ah well. Consider that qualm annulled. (I do still stand by my contention that Jesus couldn’t have won against Manchin, though. But perhaps Capito could have succeeded where the Son of God would have failed.)

          It’s also certainly true that there’s an upper limit to how many times you can lose and remain viable. Three sounds about right, if history tells us anything. (William Jennings Bryan’s magic number, after all, was three.)

  • bobmontgomery

    ….does not say that there is separation of church and state. There are a lot of people in Delaware who do not know that. The second thing is that the Constitution DOES say that I am fully qualified to be President of the United States…BUT, Sarah Palin has more executive experience than me. I understand that
    There is a time and a place for conventional wisdom. And everybody has a right to their opinion. But when conventional wisdom is carried to the absurdity of presenting a lie as the truth, and is repeated often enough, you end up with Communists in the government of the United States of America.There is enough of pushing the ‘conventional wisdom’ on the Left.
    The truth and hard-nosed politics will set us free.

    • exdoormat

      My pocket copy of the Constitution says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”. Jefferson’s letter containing the phrase: “…separation of Church and State…” means the same thing to me. The intent of the words Church and religion are the same. The problem is people think that the word God is included in Church and religion. One of lawyers jobs is to argue intent of every word, and actions speak loudly as to intent. The founding fathers (or ‘persons’ for the sensitive types) actions: start each session with a prayer that included the word ‘God’, and also, the word ‘God’ is in how many documents??? Their intent seems crystal clear. This seems so simple, I must be missing something.
      PS: Huge thanks to RedState and the many commentators who have obviously spent many hours researching the facts that I can then use in political debate/education.

  • http://freedom-light.org solvoreor

    The point in dispute is the goal.

    I want Washington to concentrate on eliminating their own financial waste, and take the mind off of my waist line.

    I want Washington to balance it’s budget and stop worrying about how I spend my money. I want regulations reduced, eliminated and “sunshined” until PROSPERITY returns. I want domestic programs run by the states. I want to revive the competition between the states and regions that led to the innovations that made this country so prosperous.

    Jobs, yes, but the government won’t create them and they can’t legislate them into existence. It needs to get out of the way.

    There is a role for the federal government. But that very much diminished role doesn’t involve so much activism.

    The one thing I noted, and I am yet to decide if this is a benefit or a failure is that the four Horseman of the Apocalypse (Reed, Pelosi, Schumer & Franks) all got re-elected. The head of the snake remains, for the next round.

    That tells me two things. The people in those districts LIKE what they did. What they did was dirty, nasty, unvarnished power grab. The people in those districts still want to tell me how to live my life.
    The current crop was sent there to “de-fang that snake”.

    In two years I will be back out there evaluating every incumbent up for election. With fellow Americans we will defeat those who fail to live up to our expectations where it matters, in the primaries. And we can keep doing that until we get what we want. Which is a whole lot less of what Washington wants.

  • californiagold

    The intellectually lazy analysis suggests that the tea party cost republicans seats in Nevada, Colorado, and Delaware. But if one looks at the election results without bias, republicans lost numerous senate seats last night where establishment republicans were on the ballot.

    California
    New York
    Vermont
    Maryland
    Oregon
    Hawaii

    The reality is, the tea party candidates brought the enthusiasm to the republican ticket this election cycle – and without the tea party movement, republicans wouldn’t have made the huge gains in congress.

    • Oz

      Angle and Buck lost in very purple states …

      This is a straw man comparison.

      • californiagold

        Delaware is a deep blue state, isn’t it ?

  • nvrepub

    nt

  • californiagold

    The tea party ran more winning candidates this election cycle than did the establishment wing of the party. In future years, what the tea party movement does will depend entirely on what type of candidates the establishment runs in the primaries. If the establishment continues to run wishy washy rinos, the tea party will work to defeat them.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    I did see an open letter that Jim Demint wrote to the freshman Senators.

    We need a few people in the House to welcome those 70-80 freshmen there also. Pence and Bachmann seem to be taking the lead.

  • californiagold

    Senator Demint hasn’t received much credit for yesterday’s results, but he deserves as much as anyone else. It was Demint who offered support to many conservative candidates around the country at a time when the establishment was going in a different direction.

  • nam6768

    has energized many people. On both sides of the aisle. Case in point. A very good friend on mine has had her 72 yr. old mother vote Republican for the FIRST time in her life.

    The mother had a friend go with her to vote. Both Dems. The friend said she voted a “straight ” Repub. ticket. The mother said she voted for “each” candidate to have the pleasure of voting against the Dem.

    • davesinsanantonio

      voting for conservative winners year after year.