The new Senate will obviously be more conservative than the old. I began with the idea that, while the Republican (Rep) caucus would be more conservative, the Democrat (Dem) caucus would be more liberal. But I found I could not justify that idea. What are the likely changes and what does it mean for the ideology of the Senate?

(Other Redstaters are far better qualified than I to opine as to the ideological purity [for want of a better phrase] of the Senators and candidates mentioned here. For my own interest and edification, I would welcome any corrections or amendments).

a. Democrats

    Safe: Inouye, Leahy, Mikulski, Schumer, Wyden.

There should not be much change in the ideological slant of the Dem caucus: Bayh and Lincoln are to the right of the Dem center, Burris (Obama), Feingold, Murray and Reid to the left, but not by as much. The rest of the outgoing Dems (or in 2 cases their likely Dem replacements) seem pretty much in the Dem center. (And so much the worse for the Dem center).

Of course, the Reps replacing Dems will be more conservative, in most cases much more conservative. My guess is that except for Buck, Angle and Toomey, the new Reps replacing Dems are near the current Rep center. But that’s a big “except”: three new solid conservative allies for Jim DeMint (and some others).

b. Republicans

Lee, Rubio, Portman, and Miller (if he hangs on) are much more conservative than the Reps they will replace. Paul is right of Bunning, but not by as much, and I don’t have an opinion as to Blunt vs. Bond or Ayotte vs. Judd.

There are eleven current Senators who receive an ACU rating of 99 or 100%. All will be returning. I would expect the 2010 elections to add six or seven to that number. If so, that’s a huge rightward shift.

I am trying to figure out how to post tabular content. Tabs, spaces and “…”s don’t seem to work. This tries html.

A Recent Mason-Dixon poll on the Florida Senate race reports:

Rubio 38 Crist 33 Meek 18 Rubio +5
Crist 39 Rubio 38 Greene 12 Crist +1

D Primary Meek 40 Greene 26 Meek +14

So (probably, in effect) 6 voters out of every 100 will vote for Meek if they can, else Crist. Fortunately for conservatives, Republicans, Floridians, Americans, and the world – they will likely be able to.

Disappointing, but Deal’s not OK.

– both good, no?

The bigger and more conservative the majority the better.  I am not a big fan of Boehner; I’d rather have Pence or Bachman or Ryan or no doubt others, but any R speaker would be a major step – a vital step – in stopping the destruction of the country.

It is vital, but probably less so that we have a cloture-proof majority in the Senate.  If Obama gets to nominate another Justice, we cannot count on Snowe, Collins, Brown, Graham, and perhaps Lugar and McCain (have I overlooked any other?), so we need at least a 6 seat gain to keep the Supreme Court in play.

One can dream, but it does not seem possible to gain veto-proof majorities in either chamber, much less both.

The bigger and more conservative the majority the better.  I am not a big fan of Boehner; I’d rather have Pence or Bachman or Ryan or no doubt others, but any R speaker would be a major step – a vital step – in stopping the destruction of the country.

It is vital, but probably less so that we have a cloture-  proof majority in the Senate.  If Obama gets to nominate another Justice, we cannot count on Snowe, Collins, Brown, Graham, and perhaps Lugar and McCain (have I overlooked any other?), so we need at least a 6 seat gain to keep the Supreme Court in play.

One can dream, but it does not seem possible to gain veto- proof majorities in either chamber, much less both.

This is an outrage.  From Taranto’s Best of the Web, 8-4-10

Meanwhile, Washington’s WRC-TV reports on how the local government in the District of Columbia is spending tax money:

On Monday, District residents’ tax dollars went to pay Summer Youth Employment Program participants to attend a Council oversight session at which they lobbied for more funding for the program. </blockquote>[end blockquote, damnit]

NOT ENDED

Rasmussen – “The notion that governments derive their only just authority from the consent of the governed is a foundational principle of the American experiment.  However, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 23% of voters nationwide believe the federal government today has the consent of the governed. Sixty-two percent (62%) say it does not, and 15% are not sure”.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2010/23_say_u_s_government_has_the_consent_of_the_governed

So tell me again, What is the difference between one who governs without the consent of, and so contrary to the will of, the governed and – a rapist.

And tell me again why we should tolerate rapists.

Rasmussen – “The notion that governments derive their only just authority from the consent of the governed is a foundational principle of the American experiment.  However, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 23% of voters nationwide believe the federal government today has the consent of the governed. Sixty-two percent (62%) say it does not, and 15% are not sure”.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2010/23_say_u_s_government_has_the_consent_of_the_governed

So tell me again, What is the difference between one who governs without the consent of, and so contrary to the will of, the governed and – a rapist.

And tell me again why we should tolerate rapists.