Boehner to Fly Commercial as House Speaker

At the video, after the discussion of failed Speaker Pelosi, and from Fox News:

Presumptive House Speaker John Boehner said Wednesday that he will not use the military jet provided to current Speaker Nancy Pelosi to fly from D.C. to his home district each week, but will board the same airlines as everybody else.

Pelosi had claimed after she became speaker in 2007 that a military aircraft was offered to her in light of position as second in line to the presidency. But Boehner said he's not so concerned.

"I've talked to our security folks about the security involved in my new role. Over the last 20 years I've flown back and forth to my district on commercial aircraft and will continue to do that," Boehner, R-Ohio, said.

The New House of Representatives in Ten Seconds

Via Invincible Armor:

Democratic House Minority Meltdown

After their debacle, you'd think they'd consider some fresh blood.

At NYT, "No. 2 House Democrat Will Try to Retain Post":

Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, said Monday that he would try to hold on to that position when his party slips into the minority next year as the leadership of House Democrats remained in turmoil one week after devastating election losses.

The decision by Mr. Hoyer, who has served as majority leader the past four years, sets up a possible fight with Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, currently the No. 3 Democrat, who said on Monday that he was still pursuing the No. 2 position as well.

At the same time, some Democrats continued to publicly question the decision of Speaker Nancy Pelosi to try to remain as party leader in the new Congress though no lawmaker has stepped forward to challenge her. Both parties are to hold internal elections next week when Congress returns for a lame-duck session.

In a letter to his colleagues, Mr. Hoyer, who spent the weekend canvassing his fellow Democrats as he explored a run for minority whip, said he could provide the experience necessary to help Democrats try to recapture the House in 2012.

“As Democratic whip, I will hit the ground running, delivering our message across the country, speaking out on the House floor against efforts to undermine the health and security of the middle class, building support for our party among all Americans and fighting the special interest money that overwhelmed many of our colleagues,” he wrote.

Mr. Clyburn and Mr. Hoyer met Monday, but aides would not divulge any details about their talks. Mr. Hoyer leads in public endorsements.

More here.

RELATED: "Moderate Dems Line Up in Opposition to Pelosi's Bid for Minority Leader," and "FOX Exclusive: Defeated Democrats Pen Letter to Implore Pelosi to Step Aside."

U.S. Party Politics Mask Real Battle Lines

From Chrystia Freeland, at Globe and Mail (via Theo Spark):

A favourite theme of American business and political elites at the moment is that authoritarian regimes – i.e. China – may be better at making hard, long-term economic decisions than are querulous democracies – i.e. the United States. There is plenty of academic research to suggest that, over the long term, this view is wrong. But in the shorter term, this week in fact, the U.S. itself offered a case study of this scary theory.

Consider: On Tuesday, Americans swung sharply to the right, giving their Democratic President a shellacking and handing control of the House of Representatives to the Republicans. The country’s most powerful elected Republican, John Boehner, who will be the new Speaker, immediately declared it was a vote for “cutting spending” and “smaller, less costly government.” Most analysts, including happy ones on Wall Street (who are often most cheerful when the country’s elected officials are least active), decided it was a vote for gridlock, thanks to the Democrats’ continued control of both the Senate and the White House.

Then, on Wednesday, the most powerful unelected Republican, Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, swooped in with massive government action, announcing a plan to pump $600-billion (U.S.) into the economy over the next two years. That is not much smaller than two of the big government interventions that earned the Democrats their shellacking – the $700-billion TARP program (never mind the pesky fact that it was actually a Republican Secretary of the Treasury who invented it) and the $787-billion stimulus.

The timing of the Fed’s move underlined one of the most important takeaways from the midterm election campaign. Watch cable news or surf the Web and you are likely to conclude that the United States is a deeply divided nation, split between fiercely partisan hardliners on the left and on the right. That’s one version of the political battle. But another one is that the division isn’t between liberals and conservatives, it’s between the hoi polloi and the elite.

The split between the mandarins and the public explains how you get a popular vote for government inaction the day before the bipartisan, Republican-led technocrats at the Fed, with only one dissenting vote, endorse massive government intervention. The economic battle today isn’t just between the Republicans and the Democrats, it is between the technocrats and the populists – and in the latter contest, the Bush-nominee who runs the Fed probably has more in common with the beaten-up Democratic President than he does with the victorious leaders of his own party.

More at the link.

Governor Chris Christie: O'Donnell Was a 'Missed Opportunity'

One thing I learned during the 2008 election was to stay away from intra-conservative battles. I was calling some right-wing bloggers all kinds of names for opposing John McCain's nomination. I regret it, mainly because I wasn't taking the long view. Whatever my policy differences, and my feelings for McCain (he was the best on foreign policy), it did little good to beat up on folks to the right of me --- especially since, in terms of important ideological trends on the right, their positions were more vindicated than mine were. And not only that: I've learned. When conservatives compromise with the middle --- and by that I mean endorsing moderate Republicans who will be "better" than centrist Dems --- they get burned every time. Newt Gingrich's endorsement of "moderate" Republican Dede Scozzafava in the NY-23's special election was a slap in the face to tea partiers (she endorsed Democrat Bill Owens after losing); and in California, we've had a "moderate" GOP governor in Arnold Schwarzenegger for seven years and this state is totally FUBAR. I won't be surprised if Governor-elect Jerry Brown pulls off a better incumbency than "The Governator," and that's saying a whole lot, believe me.

This brings me to the right's intra-ideological squabbles yesterday over New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's statement that Delaware conservatives (and voters) would have been better served with the nomination of RINO Mike Castle. We saw this debate during the primary (Patterico was at the center of this, if I recall). I'm not invested, but when Frum Forum links approvingly to radical leftist Amada Terkel at Puff Ho, that ought to be a heads up on squishy "moderate" conservative loyalties. The left is the left. Compromise kills conservatives.

Anyway, here's the lineup from yesterday. Dan Riehl goes for the ideological purity: "Post 2010: Conservatives Must Reject Christie, Powerline And Other Short-Term Thinkers." Skipping the introduction (taking aim at both Christie and Paul at Powerline), here's the beef:

While a Republican, a corporatist, or a governmentalist might describe Castle as potentially a good Senator, no honest, serious thinking Conservative ever would. That does not mean that O'Donnell was an ideal candidate. But it is imperative that the conservative movement learn from 2010, come to understand why we lost where we did, and reject the conventional Republican wisdom that only serves to undermine our cause. Surrendering to liberalism, while claiming victory as a Republican, is a defeat for conservatism. And it is precisely those types of defeats Republicans have been fostering for too long, damaging our movement and, ultimately, their own brand in the process.

I like it. But how's the going over with folks? Well, Dan triggered a pretty good reaction among some other familiar bloggers. Check Jimmie at Sundries Shack, for example, "Conservatives, It’s Time to Grow the Hell Up":

It is obvious that Castle would make a far better Senator compared to Chris Coons who will be the Senator. In other words, had the Tea Parties shown a bit more discretion and wisdom, they most likely would not be looking at a reliable progressive vote in the Senate but someone who would side with Republicans at least as often as he would Democrats.

That’s not to say that Castle would have been our bestest buddy. We would have had to fight with him at least as often as we would with the Maine sisters, but we wouldn’t have to fight him all the time. I’m not big-shot blogger like my friend Dan, but even I know that someone who votes with conservatives half the time is much better than one who will never vote with conservatives. [edited].

I like that part about "I'm not a bigshot blogger." But be sure to read the rest. Jimmie suggests that whiny brats grow up and join the real world of bipartisan cooperation.

Which leads us to Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway. Doug is anything but unpredictable: If it's ideologically conservative along Sarah Palin/tea party lines ... well, that's just too f**king crazy. See, "The Circular Firing Squad Takes Aim at Chris Christie":

Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is rarely a good idea, and the fact that there are now two Senate seats in Delaware that are likely to be controlled by Democrats for the foreseeable future rather than just one should stand as a lesson to those who demand purity even when it’s suicidal.

And one final note.

When you start seeing people like Chris Christie being attacked for not being conservative enough, you know that the right is in danger of going off the rails. Or at least some parts of it.

Folks can quibble about all of this, and I'm betting Dan and the others are not tweeting each other sweet nothings this morning, but after seven years of RINO government in California, I can tell you that successful fake Republicans are no better than genuine socialist commie Democrats. Sure, a vote here or there might be reassuring for GOP insiders, but every compromise helps the left in the end, on bullshit cap-and-trade, on budgetary bloat, on appeasement in international affairs, and so forth and so on. Just look where pragmatic conservatives line up. It if were me, I wouldn't come close to Frum Forum RINOs with a ten-foot pole --- and you can make that 100 if the name Alex Knepper gets thrown in there for some "pragmatic" icing on the cake!

Election Coverage You Might Have Missed

You know, since this doesn't really fit the narrative.

Via Founding Bloggers:

'So Long Number One'

Via FRC Action:

Gloria Allred's Feminist Grievance Industry May Have Helped Sink Billionaire Meg Whitman

Yeah, it's obvious, but I'm responding to the folks at LAT. It's really one long gusher-piece on "the most famous woman attorney practicing law in the nation today..." See, "Legal Fray Still Suits Gloria Allred Just Fine." But note at the end of the quote below how the Times suggests that Allred's sponsorship of Nicandra Diaz Santillan pre-election publicity stunt may have helped decide the election:

When you walk into Gloria Allred's office to interview her, she hands you her book — "Fight Back and Win" — and suggests you read it. Immediately.

"Would you mind?" she asks. "I think it will answer some questions."

Smiling, she leaves you in the firm's conference room, with its long, glossy table and panoramic view of Los Angeles. This is where Allred holds most of the news conferences that have made her both famous and infamous — sitting at the head of the table, jaw set, arm wrapped tightly around a weepy client as cameras zoom in.

This afternoon, it's a study hall for a lone reporter frantically skimming the book subtitled "My Thirty-Year Fight Against Injustice — and How You Can Win Your Own Battles."

Whether you see this command cram course as an exercise in vanity or efficiency won't matter to Allred. As she writes in the book, "Early in my career, I decided that if I intended to be a strong advocate for women I couldn't be deterred by my critics."

She has not been. Allred has escorted into the spotlight a parade of castoff women — the TV star fired for being too pregnant, the banker fired for being too sexy, the jilted mistresses and wronged girlfriends of famous philanderers and murderers.

With her latest client — the sad-eyed housekeeper Nicandra Diaz Santillan — she may have helped spoil the gubernatorial chances of billionaire candidate Meg Whitman. After the housekeeper said she had worked for Whitman for nine years and then been fired for being undocumented, Whitman's poll numbers dropped and Jerry Brown's lead widened.

RTWT.

It wasn't just the Diaz scandal, but if some Latinos were on the fence, the explosive allegations may have shifted quite a number of undecideds.

RELATED: "The Immigrant Vote in California."

Americans' Message to New Congress: Less Gov't, Please

At IBD (via Glenn Reynolds):

A new IBD/TIPP poll on public attitudes suggests that Tuesday's event was less an election than an intervention: Stop what you are doing; you're hurting us all.

A majority of the public wants Washington to stop the spending that has exploded the budget deficit. In a listing of top priorities for Congress, cutting the deficit by cutting spending came in No. 1, cited by 53%. (Fully 73%, including a majority of Democrats, said this is a "high priority.")

"As reflected by the outcome of the midterm elections, the public is sending a clear message to Washington: They want the government to live within its means," said Raghavan Mayur, president of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, which conducted the poll.

Rounding out the top five on the public's list, pluralities also want Washington to: 2) repeal or revise the new health care law, 3) provide more protection against terrorism, 4) reduce illegal immigration and 5) pull U.S. troops out of Afghanistan by next year.

Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, the presumed incoming House speaker, has signaled that spending cuts and repealing ObamaCare will be the priorities for the GOP majority.

But Democratic leaders are doubling down. President Obama flatly rejected in a press conference that his policies were to blame for the election losses. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Friday she would run for House minority leader in the next Congress. With so many moderates in the caucus out in January, she may win.

"We have no intention of allowing our great achievements to be rolled back," she said in a statement.

But most Americans — 57% — said an ObamaCare rollback should be a "high priority" for Congress — including 46% who say it's very important.

The public is cool to liberal solutions to cut the deficit or boost the economy. Just 7% say deficit-cutting tax hikes are a top priority. Only 14% say the same about a mix of spending cuts and tax hikes.

Only 29% support the idea of more government spending to stimulate the economy; just 14% say it should be a top agenda item.

Anyone who looks at politics with a shred of pragmatism --- and even ideologues can be pragmatic at times, which includes admitting failure --- can see that the left's meme that Obama-Dems never truly advanced a progressive agenda is pure bull. The left is indeed doubling down, and one of the more despicable indicators of this --- if not outright evil --- is the increasingly strident allegations of Republicans as racist. It just proves to me that conservatives still have a lot of work to do, and of course retiring the Obamunist in the Oval Office should be job one.

Rachel Maddow Blows a Vessel, Claims MSNBC is Real 'News Operation'

I've already posted on Keith Olbermann. I say let the guy rot in the wasteland of forgotten left-wing bloviators. But the suspension debate at MSNBC lingers today with the pathetic Rachel Maddow, the fever-swamp leftist who happens to have a her own show: "On Cable News and Cable Not-News" (via Memeorandum).

Maddow can holler 'till she's blue in the face, but the fact remains: As much as the execs at GE would like to pretend otherwise, the MSNBC cable outlet is as partisan as they come. FOX News is a modern partisan news outfit that understands that the media environment today is an extension of the political battlefield, and Roger Ailes doesn't let meaningless rules and ridiculous pretensions get in the way of the problem at hand, which is to destroy the Democrat-Socialist partisan agenda. And while it's pretty sad watching Rachel Maddow preen about how ethical and upstanding MSNBC operatives are, anyone who watches the network knows that MSNBC wants nothing less than what FOX News wants, which is the obliteration of the ideological enemy. The problem for MSNBC, of course, is that FOX News has successfully compartmentalized it's real hard-news reporting from its opinion and commentary broadcasts. And it was no contest on election night, November 2nd: "Fox News 'Fair & Balanced' Offered Best Election Eve Coverage … Shocker, Even Better Than MSNBC." But Maddow's sugar daddy is Keith Olbermann, so she'll be making a stink until the commie cows come home --- one more reason why the network's ratings are in the tank: "Fox News Dominates Cable News Election Night Coverage."

Anyway, lots of lefty outrage across the 'sphere, but check this out from the brilliant minds at Comments From Left Field:

MSNBC is a serious news organization, not a gauche political op like Fox. This appears to be the message MSNBC brass are attempting to send, following criticism from both wingnut and Beltway pundits (“right-wing cackling and old media cluck-cluck-clucking,” as Maddow put it) about the network’s purportedly “biased” election night coverage this past Tuesday: We are not Fox Left. We still inhabit the same void of vainly deluded fauxjectivity like our Village brethren do.

Okay. Right.

Actually, this guy's got a bit of the objectivity that's eluding those on the brain-blown left:

Color me unimpressed with the outpouring of outrage and garment-rending from liberal colleagues in the wake of MSNBC's suspension of shouting head Keith Olbermann.

Fine, fine, fine. Fox has no such enforced rules about political contributions from commentators and news presenters. This would never happen to a conservative. NBC's rules are antiquated in a participatory, opinionated age of "news." Stipulated. Noted. Filed.

But Olbermann certainly knew the rules and made no attempt to tell management he had broken them, when he surreptitiously made contributions to three Democratic Congressional candidates. In accepting millions from the corporation paying him to fulminate and snort nightly, he certainly agreed to the points in his contract above the signatures. And whatever the outraged left may claim about his actual status, it's clear that Olbermann considers himself a journalist - and a worthy successor to Edward R. Murrow, to boot. And he's one who regularly castigates right-wing media for abandoning the strictures of real journalism. Keith's stately silence on the matter thus far is, quite frankly, his most eloquent statement in quite some time.*

Would that it extended to the chirping chorus around the rest of MSNBC's soundstage - and quite frankly, in the progressive blogosphere, which seems to be pouring out more energy and gut-level anger into defending Olbermann than it did in defending the unappreciated accomplishments of the current Democratic administration and the now lame-duck Democratic Congress.

There are many liberals who root for MSNBC to grow into a counterweight to the Fox monstrosity, our side's version of fair and balanced and loud.

Count me out. It's bad strategy, it's bad karma - and it's bad television. The MSNBC squad is almost painful to watch these days. On election night, the roiling tension on the desk was a death star of hair-shirted self-flagellation, a black hole of anger and resentment that almost sucked the sunny Rachel Maddow into its vortex. O'Donnell vs. Matthews vs. Olbermann. Feel the love. Jagger and Richards are warmer at this point. As seat-squirmingly painful as any Larry David show, but without the yucks. And the freak show vitriol of the mid-term coverage was in direct opposition to the preening West Wing-style house ads that MSNBC has rolled out to push its "Lean Forward" line-up of lefties. God, is there anything that smacks of the white upper middle class patriarchy more than the ad featuring Lawrence O'Donnell leaving the MSNBC offices late at night, and the moment he touches the shoulder of the black security guy on his way out?

Who Knew? MSNBC's Lawrence O’Donnell Admits On-Air: 'I Am a Socialist'

Via The Blaze.

This is just part of the larger MSNBC commie catfight bewtween O'Donnell and Glenn Greenwald:

God this is wonderful.

Matt Lewis has the background, "'Morning Joe' Battle: Lawrence O'Donnell vs. Glenn Greenwald," and he notes:

... the larger debate here is over whether Democrats will view the 2010 midterm elections as evidence they misread their mandate and over-reached after 2008 -- or if they will view it as evidence they moderated too much after 2008.

And never one to miss having the last word, Rick Ellensburg has more, "Lawrence O'Donnell vehemently denies his own words." In a couple of thousand words, Ellensburg regurgitates the line that "Democrats weren't socialist enough." This is essentially the left's pathology of defeat and denial. For the ace rebuttal, see William Galston, "It's the Ideology, Stupid."

The Best Angry 'Downfall' Parody Evah!! — Hitler Finds Out the GOP Has Retaken the House

OMG this is hilarious!

Via Blazing Catfur:

Marco Rubio Delivers Weekly GOP Address

Via Kim Priestap:

As I've said, we need some Marco Rubios in California.

Black and Republican and Back in Congress

This is great.

At NYT:

For the first time in over a decade, the incoming class of Congress will include two black Republicans, both of whom rode the Tea Party wave to victory while playing down their race.

One of them, Allen West, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Army, prevailed in a tough fight in a South Florida district. The other, Tim Scott, is the first black Republican to be elected to the House of Representatives from South Carolina in over a century. They will be the first black Republicans in Congress since J. C. Watts of Oklahoma retired in 2003.

“I did not want to run as a black candidate; I did not want to run as a military candidate,” Mr. West said in a telephone interview. “I wanted to run as an American candidate and win the respect of the people.”

While the number of African-Americans in Congress has steadily increased since the civil rights era, black Republicans have been nearly as rare as quetzal birds.

For Mr. Watts, a former college quarterback, the job came with a significant spotlight and significant challenges — as an African-American he was a minority among Republicans, and as a Republican he was a minority among blacks on Capitol Hill. While his time in office overlapped the tenure of another black Republican, Gary A. Franks, who represented a Connecticut district from 1991 until 1997, Mr. Watts is in the one who came to represent the perks and travails of his position.

“I was smart enough to not allow Republicans to compel me to play the role of the ‘black Republican,’ ” Mr. Watts said in a telephone interview. “But I never felt compelled to ignore real issues of the black community either.”

He did not join the Congressional Black Caucus because it was dominated by Democrats, he said, a decision that Mr. West said was a mistake that he would not repeat.

“I think you need to have competing voices in that body,” Mr. West said. “I think that is important.” (Mr. Scott has not decided if he will join the caucus.)

African-Americans found a place in Congress in the latter decades of the 19th century, particularly during the Reconstruction period after the Civil War, when 16 black men served, all of them Republicans. The first was Hiram R. Revels, of Mississippi, who was in the Senate from 1870 to 1871. Joseph H. Rainey from South Carolina was the first black member of the House, serving from 1870 to 1879, according to Congressional Quarterly’s “Guide to U.S. Elections.”

There were no blacks in Congress from 1900 to 1929, but since then, their numbers have increased bit by bit, especially after the civil rights movement, this time with Democrats leading the way, a reflection of the changed dynamics of each party and the shifts of power in state legislatures. Of all the blacks ever to serve in Congress, 98 have been Democrats and 27 have been Republicans; there are 42 African-American members in the current lame-duck Congress ...

Voting the Straight Party Ticket

I love this story!

At IBD:

Judicial Retention: Three judges in Iowa were disrobed on Tuesday for voting to end the state's ban on gay marriage. Even those who legislate from the bench would be wise not to ignore we the people.

We've often complained about the power of unelected judges who, when not circumventing the U.S. Constitution and those of their respective states, are busy inventing new rights that often conflict with the will of the people, even after voters or their elected representatives have voted the opposite way.

In some states, while voters may not get to pick the judges, they can vote to retain them based on their judicial rulings or whatever. Few voters pay attention long enough to remember names or scan the sometimes long list of names found at the end of their ballots under the words "judicial retention." This time, Iowa voters did.

Vote totals from 96% of Iowa's 1,774 precincts showed that three judges — Marsha Ternus, the chief justice; Michael Streit and David Baker — failed to get the simple majority needed for them to remain on the bench.

Their replacements will be appointed by incoming Gov. Terry Branstad, a newly elected Republican who signed the state's Defense of Marriage Act during his first term 12 years ago. It's a reminder that the judicial appointment power and the preferences of governors and presidents need to be something voters should pay attention to.

It's the first time since the merit selection and judicial retention system was enacted in Iowa in 1962 that voters have ousted judges. Said Bob Vander Plaats, the Sioux City businessman who led a campaign to remove the justices because of the 2009 gay marriage ruling: "The people of Iowa stood up in record numbers and sent a message . .. that it is 'We the people,' not 'We the courts.'"

More at the link.

RELATED: "What Happened to Proposition 19?"

Republicans Made Obama Into a Lefty

Unbelievably lame.

Via Greg Hengler:

Crushing Progressives

As expected, conservatives crushed the left on Tuesday (and for good reason). The indicators are everywhere: Republicans picked up 60 seats in the House, 6 seats in the Senate, a majority of governorships, and a whopping 680 seats in state legislatures across the country. The headline from this morning's New York Times really captures the scale of victory: "Decisive Gains at State Level Could Give Republicans a Boost for Years."

But in another indicator of just how brutally progressives got slammed Tuesday, it turns out that the far-left Progressive Change Campaign Committee put out a list of 95 progressive Democrats who pledged to back Net Neutrality --- legislation that would regulate Internet providers and perhaps open the door to leftist censorship of competing viewpoints. And while this may be some freaky quirk, every single one of those progressive Dems lost election: "95 Candidates Who Pledged Support For Net Neutrality Lost On Tuesday."

Adam Green is the co-founder of PCCC. Interviewed by MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell at the clip, Green offers the classic leftist talking point claiming the reason Dems got hammered is that they weren't socialist enough. And Red State has a post-election quote from Green making the case for a "bolder" Democrat agenda:

What’s left to say after this wipeout? - Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, says this: “Democrats lost because party leaders never truly fought for popular progressive reforms like the public option and breaking up the big banks, leaving voters uninspired to come to the polls and vote Democratic…. Progressives will be stepping up and insisting that the Democratic Party be bolder, not weaker. We will demand boldness, reward bold leaders, reject ‘leaders’ in name only, and hold Democratic politicians accountable when they don’t fight for popular, progressive change. In short, these next two years, progressives will push Democrats to fight strongly for popular progressive reforms — and save the Democratic Party from its own incredible weakness that savaged Democratic candidates in 2010.”

And again, listen carefully to Green at the clip above. He claims internal PCCC polling in 2009 had 80 percent of Dems, 70 percent of independents, and 50 percent --- that's right, 50 percent --- of conservatives backing the public option. Who knows? Who cares? To rely on some iffy poll sample from over a year ago to bolster the case of an even more progressive Democrat Party in the wake of the most epic electoral repudiation in decades is suicidal. This is all of a piece with the cognitive dissonance that's inflicted leftists since Tuesday. For example, at R.S. McCain, "Democrats in Denial." And George Will, "A Recoil Against Liberalism" (via Memeorandum).

And more of it at Daily Kos, "Rejecting Liberalism":

Ignore the pundits and remember the battles over the issues, including the battles that never happened. The voters didn't reject a liberal agenda because they didn't see a liberal agenda. Many wouldn't know what a liberal agenda looks like, because no one has bothered to show them one.

Hey, keep it up Kos-commies. That'll only pump up GOP chances even more heading into 2012. See, "Progressives Increase Their Power Over Obama."

Obama Cult Crashes in Blaze of Creepiness and Confusion

Mark Morford posted a simply pathetic essay this morning at the San Francisco Chronicle. How bad? Think of Frank Rich after a month-long drug-induced binge of Palin Derangement Syndrome, capped off with a smokin' Texas-Sized Tequila Tea-Party Chaser. Morford's piece is all-knowingly titled, "Letter to a Whiny Young Democrat." No need for a quotation (if you've read Frank Rich you've already got a handle on boilerplate left-wing teabag bashing). The eye-roller is that Morford is in no freakin' position to lecture the burnout-dropout youth cohort now copping a large share of the blame for Tuesday's Democrat debacle. No, Morford was one of the biggest Obama worshippers in 2008. He came under intense fire for penning a June 2008 essay literally elevating Barack Obama to God-like status: "Is Obama An Enlightened Being?" Folks may remember it. Morford's the one who popularized Obama as "The Lightworker."

He wasn't alone, by any means. I'm just rolling over here at Morford's hypocrisy (not to mention mendacity, unorginality, and so forth and so on). There's plenty of blame to go around --- the collapse of youth participation, the enthusiasm gap, the backlash against socialism, and Obama's epic failures themselves. But Morford's bogus tutorial to the Coachella Cohort falls freakin' flat. Democrat-Socialists had it coming. Hubris breeds humility, and the bill's come due. Here's another blast from the past, an all-hail comment at my first Pajamas Media essay in October 2008. My head hurts at the extreme creepiness:

2. Truth First

Very soon Barack Obama will be your new President. This is a reality you cannot alter or escape from. It is fact. It is history. It is justice for the world.

Many of you have seen the light and have accepted the truth. And we thank you for your support and aid in electing Barack Obama.

To those who have rejected the truth you have no reason to fear Barack Obama. He is wise and just and he will follow the principals followed by his African forefathers. Barack Obama is the son of Kings and Queens who started human civilization thousands of years ago. Barack Obama remembers his heritage and his obligations to the Truth, Justice and the Future.

Barack Obama understands what is wrong and what needs to be done. Barack Obama has intelligence and vision that has lasted for over a millennium. Barack Obama was born with the appropriate ways of thinking, speaking, and acting and this will inspire you to be liberated for now there is no shackle which can keep you enslaved.

An African Proverb tell us: “Then command the servant, thusly: Make an Elder’s staff causing my son to stand in my place I will instruct him through the speech of the listeners and the counsels of the first of the ancients who listened to the divinities. In so doing troubles will be removed from the people.”

Barck Obama is here now to listen, to instruct and will lead you to your new life.

America will have a new start. A change to right itself. A change to correct its wrongs and address its sins. If you support change that will bring forth social and economic justice, you will stand with Barack Obama. Those who have been denied justice in America will get justice. Those will have been denied opportunity will be given opportunity. Those will falsely imprisoned will be freed. Those who are guilty will be punished. America’s salvation is at hand.

Those who have profited in America will play a role helping others. Justice requires equality and fairness and those who have the means will now be fair and will contribute to equality.

Stand with Barack Obama and you will be honored you for your work, sacrifice, dedication and devotion on behalf of all oppressed peoples.

Stand with Barack Obama and you will be honored and celebrated and remembered in song and praise and by your children.

http://truthfirstnow.blogspot.com/

October 24, 2008 - 10:49 am...

**********

UPDATE: Blazing Catfur links: "Where’s your messiah now?"

Dead Democrat Reelected in Long Beach, and Other Tales From the Crypt of California Politics

I mean no disrepect to Jenny Oropeza, who was well liked in the Long Beach community, but her reelection is a metaphor for the morbid left-wing partisanship in California. Red Dog Report catches the drift: "Zombie Politics: California Elects the Dead":

What Were They Smoking?

It’s been well established that the dead seem to rise up every other November to vote in Chicago.

But now the residents Long Beach have done Windy City one better.

California’s 28th State Senate District has re-elected Democrat Jenny Oropeza…

Who died last month ...

Democrats hold a 20 point voter registration advantage,

But the latest numbers showed that the Deceased Senator was leading by nearly 23 points.

Which means the Zombie politician received bi-partisan support!

Meaning that California is so anti-GOP that they would rather be served by the dead, than elect a living Republican.

But hey, that’s California for ya.

And this is perhaps the vote of the living dead, and just as depressing, "Strength of the Latino Vote is Key Factor in the GOP's Tepid Showing in the State":

In one declarative night, California on Tuesday confirmed its status as a political world unto itself, zigging determinedly Democratic while most of the rest of the country zagged Republican. Voters not only restored the governor's office to Democratic hands, they may have given Democrats a sweep of statewide offices, though uncounted ballots could still shift one race.

Driving much of the success — and distancing the state from the national GOP tide, according to exit polls — was a surge in Latino voters. They made up 22% of the California voter pool, a record tally that mortally wounded many Republicans.

Latinos were more likely than other voters to say it was the governor's race that impelled them to vote, and they sided more than 2 to 1 with Democrat Jerry Brown over Meg Whitman, the Republican whose campaign had been embroiled in a controversy over illegal immigration. Once at the polls, they voted for other Democrats as well.

California Republicans had multiple reasons for head-shaking on Wednesday. For decades, the state party has squabbled over whether success would come more easily to candidates running as conservatives or those who presented a more moderate face to the state's sizeable bloc of independent, centrist voters. This year they tried both. Senate candidate Carly Fiorina ran a firmly conservative race and Whitman took a more moderate road.

Holding their coastal strength, Democrats ran away with their big counties. Brown carried Los Angeles County, home to 25% of the state's voters, by 31 points, giving him almost 60% of his lead. Republican candidates, including Whitman, did better than Democrats in their traditional interior California strongholds. But the strong Republican counties tend to be heavier on acreage than voters.

On Tuesday each hit a double-digit dead end, as Fiorina lost to Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer and Whitman came in a distant second to Brown.

Democratic successes in the midst of 2010's national Republican renaissance marked a sharp turnabout from how the state behaved during the last major Republican year, in 1994. That year, as Republicans took back Congress, they won in California as well, picking up five of seven statewide offices, including the governorship, and adding legislative seats. This time, Democrats picked up a legislative seat despite Republican gains nationally, and were waiting for uncounted ballots to see whether they lost a congressional seat or two.

The difference between then and now rests on the changes in the California electorate. Those changes also explain the gulf that now exists between California and the nation. California in 1994 was more white and proportionately less Democratic than it is today, thus more similar to the country today. Nationally, non-whites made up only 22% of the Tuesday electorate; in California they made up 38%. Latinos nationally represented 8% of the national electorate, just shy of a third of their power in California. The California and national exit polls were conducted by Edison Research for a consortium of news organizations, including television news networks and the Associated Press.

Tellingly, Latinos in California had a far more negative view of the GOP than other voters — almost 3 in 4 had an unfavorable impression, to 22% favorable. Among all California voters the view of Republicans was negative, but at a closer 61% negative and 32% positive. Latinos had a strongly positive view of Democrats, 58% to 37%, whereas all voters were closely split, 49% to 45%.

More at the link.

We need some Marco Rubios in California, and then some: "Minority Republican Candidates Make History On Election Day."

All is not lost, but we have a lot of work to do in the Golden State.

I Just Can't Be Happy Today

A classic from The Damned. Sums up how I've been feeling after the People's Republic of California resisted the national GOP tide. I'll be back to my old self in a few days, and I'm hoping to get some analysis on the California races posted soon:

I Just Can't Be Happy Today
I Just Can't Be Happy Today

A lot of you know there's nothing to smile
There's no feeling fine without being fined
It's a price on your head
No point being sad when justice is red

I Just Can't Be Happy Today
I Just Can't Be Happy Today

They're closing the schools
They're burning the books
The church is in ruins
The priests hang on hooks
The radios on ice
The telly's been banned
The army's in power
The devil commands

Illegal to dance Forbidden to cry
You do what you're told and never ask why
Ignore all those fools
They don't understand we make our own rules

I Just Can't Be Happy Today
I Just Can't Be Happy Today
I Just Can't Be Happy, Just Can't Be Happy, Just Can't Be Happy Today
I Just Can't Be Happy, Just Can't Be Happy, Just Can't Be Happy Today