10 observations at the end of this election week
By Josh Richman
Friday, November 9th, 2012 at 9:42 am in 2012 Congressional Election, 2012 presidential election.
1.) One party’s strategy this year involved getting far more people to vote, while another’s seemed to involve having fewer people vote; the more democratic approach prevailed.
2.) Meg should’ve told Mitt: Money helps, but it ain’t everything.
3.) It’s not just W who calls Karl Rove “turd blossom” now; a lot of rich, anonymous donors must be clamoring for their money back.
4.) You can read, watch or listen to your news from whatever outlets you want, but eventually reality comes crashing in.
5.) Picture an empty chair, on which sits a binder full of women who ride horses and carry bayonets; now think of in whose favor all of these campaign memes worked.
6.) A slow adjustment, with small changes marking the way from old to new, is evolution; an overnight change is more like mutation.
7.) When a party leader talks tough – even in the heat of battle – about picking up 25 seats, and in the end only picks up seven, there are consequences.
8.) Even 40 years of incumbency can’t save a candidate from himself.
9.) Don’t mess with Jerry Brown.
10.) Donald Trump is an a—hat.
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
November 9th, 2012 at 1:06 pm
The more democratic approach prevailed, but only because of Team Obama’s historic ground game infrastructure. A non-incumbent without Obama’s built-in edge with blacks, Latinos and youth determined to vote would not have fared so well.
Karl Rove/Citizens United may not have worked for the POTUS and Senate races this time. However, you can expect the moneyed evil-doers to put more emphasis on state races, judicial elections and such and buy the country from the ground up. Also, some of the Senate candidates on the GOP side were, shall we say, “a tough sell.”
Any bets on how long before Pelosi retires — first as minority leader and later from Congress?
November 9th, 2012 at 4:10 pm
@ 1
Sooner rather than later, I imagine.
Other than her prodigious fund raising ability which seems to have accomplished nothing, I cannot imagine why the dimmiecrats kept her as leader after the disastrous ’10 debacle.
November 9th, 2012 at 4:20 pm
Matt Drudge has been asked to stop publishing items about African-Americans raping, robbing, pillaging and looting.
It makes them look bad and hurts their feelings.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/266787-dear-matt-drudge-stop-the-race-stories
November 9th, 2012 at 4:46 pm
Isn’t it strange that Petraeus chose to resign immediately after the election and immediately before the Benghazi hearings?
Maybe the extracurricular hide the weenie just happened last week.
November 9th, 2012 at 5:07 pm
Without doubt, BO’s unrelenting campaign to demonize an honorable man, along with a more effective ground game, won him the day. However, in an extraordinarily tough game where both sides play for keeps, he has nothing to be proud of.
He and his team set a new standard for pettiness and cynicism. Absent the ability to trumpet a four-year record of accomplishment or any new vision for the future, BO set out, as one of his campaign staffers so artfully admitted in a released e-mail, “to kill Mitt Romney.” Romney’s team helped by ignoring one of the most basic rules of politics, “Define yourself before the other side does.”
BO’s team focused its messages on, among other things, Romney’s dog, giving some fellow high school student a haircut, his success (Heaven forbid), his supposed culpability in the death of a laid off worker’s wife, his “felonious” business behavior, his Mormon faith, birth control, horses, bayonets, “binders full of women,” his phantom “war on women,” his plans to destroy Medicare and Social Security (the age-old Democratic tactic known as “Medi-scare”), “Big Bird,” you name it. Yawn.
BO’s was not a campaign of big ideas but rather petty BS. In the end, it worked. I’ll give him that. He gets the brass ring. But was it an effort to truly be proud of? I think not.
November 9th, 2012 at 6:33 pm
Re: #5 JAFO
Whatever the Dems did to “define” Mitt was nothing compared to what his firebrand primary opponents did during the GOP debates. It’s true that Mitt failed to define himself before both his primary opponents and the Dems did it for him. But it’s pretty hard to define yourself when you’re etch-a-sketching yourself from “I was a severe conservative governor” in the GOP debates to Moderate Mitt after the convention. Or when your major achievement as governor was to enact ObamaCare, I mean RomneyCare, and then make repealing RomneyCare, I mean ObamaCare, the centerpiece of your campaign.
November 9th, 2012 at 6:48 pm
Re: #4 Elwood
Congress can still call Petraeus to testify in the closed hearings. He has resigned, so he has no reason to hold back and protect the administration. So, your suggestion that his departure has anything to do with Benghazi is a bit of a stretch, don’t you think? But I’d love to hear your theory. It’s Friday, and there’s not much on TV for entertainment.
November 9th, 2012 at 7:34 pm
” Benghazi is a bit of a stretch, don’t you think?”
Not at all. You’re thinking maybe it’s just a coincidence?
As Henry David Thoreau so famously said “Some circumstantial evidence is damning, such as finding a trout in the milk.”
November 9th, 2012 at 8:12 pm
So, let me see.
The general has his affair.
Obama knows about it and plans to use it as leverage to keep Petraeus from spilling the beans on what really went down in Benghazi.
Obama decides not use his leverage until right after the election and just before the closed hearing.
Obama tells the general he’s got the goods on him.
The general says, “oh my” and quits.
And all this helps Obama on Benghazi how?
November 9th, 2012 at 8:29 pm
@ 9
You should be a fiction writer, John. You have a real flair for it. Perhaps you could be the next John le Carre!
Apparently, you are a strong believer in coincidence.
It just happened to happen that way.
Uh huh!
Uh huh!
November 10th, 2012 at 1:11 am
This matter is bound to quickly get more interesting. But I don’t see what possible connection there could be to Benghazi.
November 10th, 2012 at 12:40 pm
@ 11
Stay tuned!
November 10th, 2012 at 1:12 pm
“Timing is just too perfect”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/11/09/lt_col_ralph_peters_on_petraeus_timing_is_just_too_perfect.html
November 10th, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Re #11 So, LTC Peters (Ret.) conspiracy theory is that Petraeus wouldn’t play ball on Benghazi. So Obama’s people cleverly played the “we know you you cheated on your wife” card and accepted his resignation. And I guess that would somehow make him more inclined to play ball if called to testify. Gosh, how could anybody possibly argue with that logic?
November 10th, 2012 at 2:05 pm
Oops. Meant Re #13
November 10th, 2012 at 2:29 pm
Re #11 and 12
Well, I said this would get more interesting (but nothing to do with Benghazi). It did. There is now pretty convincing speculation that a July letter to the NYT Sunday magazine column, “The Ethicist.” was from the husband of Petraeus’s lover, Paula Broadwell. I often read that column and recall the letter.
The letter (not using the writer’s real name) sought advice on how to ethically respond to knowledge that your wife is having an affair with an important member of the executive branch of government. The ethical dilemma, as defined by the writer, was that remaining silent would leave him miserable; while confronting it could destroy the career of a man whose work he admired and be disruptive to that important work. The timing of the letter corresponds with the timeframe during which the affair was occurring. The writer was advised to confront his wife privately and avoid doing anything that would call public attention to the matter.
Also, it appears that the FBI discovered the affair while investigating the possibility of Petraeus’s e-mail account being compromised. This apparently involved harassing e-mails to CIA staffers traced back to Paula Broadwell’s computer. Gee, I wonder who might have authored those e-mails.
November 10th, 2012 at 3:43 pm
@ 16
Yes, very interesting, John. I too read the letter. I found the email reference to sex under the desk to be especially informative.
As to Benghazi? Trout, milk, duck, smoke etc.
It’s always the second term when the rot starts to show.
November 10th, 2012 at 4:07 pm
This may have been the Yr of the Angry Woman but it was also the Defeat of the Angry Fat White Man. Both Chris Christie and Karl Rove embarrassed the Repubs at the end of the campaign.
November 10th, 2012 at 4:18 pm
Hillary too busy to testify on Benghazi
Can you say rotten arrogance?
http://washingtonexaminer.com/house-asked-clinton-to-testify-on-benghazi-but-she-declines-due-to-scheduling-conflict/article/2513151
November 10th, 2012 at 6:13 pm
When Sean Hannity starts saying he has “evolved” on immigration and talks about creating a “path to citizenship,” I’d say somebody is starting to get the message. When G.W. Bush and McCain proposed an immigration bill in Bush’s second term, Hannity and all the conservative talk radio people went nuts.
November 10th, 2012 at 6:27 pm
Re 19
Totally legit. AUSMIN is an annual meeting, scheduled a year in advance, between the US Secretaries of Defense and State and their Aussie counterparts — along with the various officials who travel with them. It was held in San Francisco in 2011 and switches to Perth in 2012.
If the committee wants to reschedule HRC for a different date, I recommend she tell them how delighted she would be to appear if it were not for her previously schedule hair appointment.
November 10th, 2012 at 6:52 pm
I’d say something about contempt of Congress, but that would be redundant.
The chosen one regime has always exhibited contempt of Congress, and the second term will make what came before look like a course in constitutional law, which the chosen one once instructed. (He was not a professor.)
November 10th, 2012 at 10:33 pm
Regardless of title, he held a teaching position at a top tier law school.
Quoting from the school’s web site posting responding to media inquiries about Obama’s role:
From1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the law school. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
November 11th, 2012 at 1:16 pm
@ 23
All hail the chosen one!
Count me out.
November 11th, 2012 at 2:12 pm
Breaking news! Elwood doesn’t heart Obama.
By 2016, the following will have happened:
A much stronger economy — the same 12 million jobs Romney promised.
Obama and GOP will have reached a grand bargain on real deficit reduction, including tax reform and entitlements.
30 million fewer Americans will be left exposed to financial and health ruin for lack of coverage.
Iran’s nuclear threat will be stopped, one way or another.
Obama and GOP will have reached a deal on comprehensive immigration reform.
Obama will be getting ready to leave the WH with a 65% approval rating.
Hillary or Jeb will be getting ready to move in.
Elwood will still be talking about Fast & Furious and Benghazi.
November 11th, 2012 at 2:20 pm
Welcome to the “Elwood and John W” blog. Nice of you to host it for them, Josh.
November 11th, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Nice conspiracy theories about Petraeus’s affair, except — Cantor claims HE knew about this for over a month, and kept HIS mouth shut even though it could have hurt “the chosen one’s” chances of getting re-elected — so maybe this ISN’T about Benghazi and maybe it IS about cutting a true patriot some domestic slack.
That said, my aluminum (foil) futures stake (that I bought some weeks ago) is going gangbusters! So all you Alcoaheads — Tea Party away!
November 11th, 2012 at 3:51 pm
Re JAFO #26
This board is not a zero sum game. One person making frequent comments (assuming they stay on topic) does not diminish anybody else’s opportunity to post and be heard (or read).
November 11th, 2012 at 5:49 pm
@ John W. #25
John, you forgot to add “Pigs will fly.”
November 11th, 2012 at 5:52 pm
@ 27
“a true patriot”
For clarification purposes, could you please tell us of whom you speak?
November 11th, 2012 at 5:55 pm
@ 26
Bite me.
You should post away to your little heart’s content.
They are not rationed.
November 11th, 2012 at 6:04 pm
Get your brand new Government Motors Obamavolt!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4dV1nfjQRY
November 11th, 2012 at 6:12 pm
@29, @30 and @31 –
I need to call my broker and add “Gin futures” to my holdings — someone is really throwin’ it D-O-W-N and gettin’ N-A-S-T-Y!
@29 — “Pigs will fly”?
@30 — Accusing David Petraeus, a four star General of being something other than “a true patriot” for all the service he rendered to this country?
@31 — “Bite me.”?
Elwood — thou art an Alcoahead of the first order.
Remember, we’re not laughin’ wit ya, we’re laughin…you figure out the rest, if you can.
We now clearly know that you’ve left this planet (given that we’ve succumbed to “the chosen one” as our leader) and you are now orbiting the planet of Uranus…
November 11th, 2012 at 6:17 pm
@32 –
As a reminder, the Hafrican Socialist won the Electoral College exactly (to the vote!) by 332 to 206, as I called it many months ago — and is the biggest incumbent margin since…wait for it…Ronnie RayGun!
Better hurry and getting packing — Holder and Nepolitano are giving you the same extra grace time (three weeks) to flee to Canada that Sebelius is giving the GOP holdout states to comply with the need for state exchanges for ObamaCare — aka death panels for the overly obese!
November 11th, 2012 at 6:17 pm
Isn’t it strange that Eric Cantor was the only one in Congress to know about l’affair Petraeus?
It stretches the limits of credibility.
November 11th, 2012 at 6:18 pm
Please, please, how many times must I tell you?
It’s halfrican! halfrican!
November 11th, 2012 at 7:00 pm
@35 –
The sound coming out of Elwood’s mouth, ears, and other cavities (just like Karl Rove) right now as he attempts to speak anything resembling fact or truth:
What happens when you drink too much gin and vote Republican, and then have to go out into the world the day after the election.
The sequence at :35 is particularly amusing…and I don’t think even ObamaMeds would help this condition — it’s called terminal Alcoaheadism.
November 11th, 2012 at 7:14 pm
It’s those filthy, godless, anti-capitalist Muslims that defeated Romney!
Without their criminal votes, I know that the GOP would have won Ohio in a landslide, just as Rove’s numbers proved they were going to!
We need to implement marshal law and deport that heathen slime, if need be, by force, before they further infect us pure Americans, living the good and decent Christian life!
November 11th, 2012 at 8:21 pm
The only battlegrounds that were close were Virginia, FL and OH (which Obama narrowly won) and North Carolina (which he narrowly lost). He could have lost all of those and still had enough electoral votes to win.
November 11th, 2012 at 8:23 pm
Make fun of my freedom-loving brother, Elwood, if you dare, you godless heathens, you commie slackers and sloth-loving slime — you have been warned, and warned for a LONG time!
Hear the Wise Words of the Almighty and All-Knowing Prophet!
The Once and Forever King of Freedom!
The Soul and Essence of our Great and Powerful Republican Party!
The Endless Light that Shines like a Beacon of Hope, Beaming so Bright from that Shining City on the Tall and Magnificant Mountain of Worldly Liberty!
He Speaks the Truth that None Else Before or After Have the Courage to Speak!
You Have Been Warned!
November 11th, 2012 at 8:38 pm
Re: 35
I don’t see any big mysteries in terms of how and when the FBI or WH handled this matter.
However, I do have questions about the Cantor part.
The so-called FBI whistleblower didn’t tell Cantor. He told a Washington state rank and file GOP Congressman, Dave Reichert; who, in turn, told somebody in Cantor’s office. Reichert has confirmed that he was told but has made no further comment. I’m sure he will be required to disclose his source and that the so-called “whistleblower” will soon be a former FBI employee, and rightly so.
Why, in the middle of an active investigation involving a highly sensitive matter such as this, would you go blab to some no-name Congressman?
Why did Reichert go to Cantor’s office? Cantor has a political leadership role (House Majority Leader) and no responsibility for House FBI and Intelligence oversight.
Why did Cantor not say something to somebody like Mike Rogers, GOP chairman of the House Intelligence committee?
November 11th, 2012 at 8:48 pm
@41 –
Why do you continue to pretend to defend our faithless and self-focused, anti-American “leader”, the “chosen one”?
Can you not see what path of destruction he is leading us down, like Lambs being Led to the Slaugherhouse?
The Countless Lies and Deception?
The Betrayal of all we Christian Americans hold Dear?
The very Backbone of our Freedom — Capitalism and Independence?
See for Yourself!
November 11th, 2012 at 10:07 pm
@ 42
You’ve been doing too many lines.
November 11th, 2012 at 10:46 pm
Re: 42
Are you putting us on? If not, then I can’t imagine anything more spot on than your chosen alias, “AlcoaHead.
November 12th, 2012 at 1:24 am
What has become apparent, after this week’s victory for Obama, is that adherents to limited government are no longer the majority in this nation.
November 12th, 2012 at 11:08 am
Re: 45
“Limited government” is more philosophy than action plan. Most voters are not philosophy-oriented, and never have been. They are not for “big government,” but are for a lot of stuff that adds up to that. On the other hand, they are for limiting government power on personal matters such as abortion.
November 12th, 2012 at 1:18 pm
Is Alcoa the alter ego of Truthie?
November 12th, 2012 at 1:41 pm
@ 47 RR
You got it, RR.
Isn’t he just too precious?
November 12th, 2012 at 4:02 pm
RE#6
“they are for limiting government power on personal matters such as abortion.”
They want government to stay out of it, but they still want government to pay for it. These are the coveted voters that pushed O over the top.
I agree with your over all assessment. The philosophy of smaller government is lost on those that want something for nothing. How can a party that preaches lower taxes and smaller government win when 47% of the electorate pays no taxes and recieves some sort of government hand out. When the majority of Americans are recieving some benefit from the Government and you have a party (the Democrats) that shamelessly promotes and encourages it, personal liberty and economic prosperity will start to dwindle. We are divided. We have always been divided, but 2012 will mark the tipping point. There are now more people in the wagon than there are people pulling the wagon.
November 12th, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Re #49
I believe government funding of abortions except in cases of rape or incest is prohibited by the so-called “Hyde Amendment.” You’re probably thinking of contraception.
Contrary to the conventional wisdom, I think “getting stuff” is a relatively small factor in how people vote. I think identity politics (both D and R-leaning) and support for many of the things that government does are bigger factors. Low income people who benefit from “getting stuff” programs do not vote in proportion to their share of the voting-age population.
A lot of the things people are for that add up to big government and influence their voting patterns don’t involve transfer payments or getting stuff from the government. Among them: national security, law enforcement (FBI and DOJ), disaster recovery (FEMA), environmental protection, food safety, public health (CDC), consumer protection, the Space program, national forests, etc.
A lot of means-based “safety net” benefits (food stamps, Medicaid, housing assistance) disproportionately go to people in “Red” states or to people in “Red” sections of “Blue” states. California is a good example of that last category. Excluding Medicaid, these programs account for 13% of federal spending. They include the earned income and child tax credits — which account for a big chunk of those people who don’t pay income taxes.
The age group that benefits from Social Security and Medicare (the biggies, along with Medicaid), tends to vote Republican. Those three programs and Defense account for 60% of federal spending.
Many of the people who showed up at those town hall “shout-a-thons” during the health care debate were people on SS, Medicare and other government benefit programs and will probably be among those who benefit from ObamaCare.
The home mortgage interest deduction is a subsidy, but you rarely hear anyone refer to that as “getting stuff.” 75% of the tax benefit from that goes to people in just three “Blue” state markets (NY, LA and SF).
November 13th, 2012 at 8:26 am
Re#50
I get it. Republicans get more government hand outs than Democrats. Thanks for the insight.
Though I think SS, Medicare, and Medicaid are broken and ill concieved entitlement programs, they are not “free”. The majority of the people recieving benefits paid into them.
Not taking someones money in taxes is not a handout. Example:I am walking down a dark alley and a mugger decides not to rob me. The next day the mugger comes up to me and says “So……What will you do with the money I gave you, last night?”
For a minute I lost faith in our Republic, but now I am glad that the following interest groups were not swayed by government benefits.
-United Auto Workers
-Single Moms and Single Women
-Union Members
-The Green Energy Industry
-Government Workers
-Welfare Recipients/Food Stamps/99 weeks of Unemployment
-College Students
-23-26 year old dead beats that won’t buy health insurance
November 13th, 2012 at 12:34 pm
Re: 51
I won’t deny that many who make up the Democratic coalition fall into the “takers” category, to use Paul Ryan’s term. However, I am none of the groups you listed above; but I’m part of the coalition and have had the good fortune to never be in the “taker” column. Well, come to think of it, that’s not true. I’m on Medicare. The GI Bill paid for part of my college education. My tuition covered less than half of what it cost to provide that education. Property taxes paid for my K-12 education. There are plenty of me who lean Democratic, or “un-Republican.” Unless you think the 51% who voted for Obama is made of of nothing but freeloaders.
It also is true that many who vote Republican are “takers” and union members but are also God, Guns and anti-gay types. West Virginia is a pretty good example. It’s why Ohio, a big union state, often votes Republican.
As for SS and Medicare, I will agree with you on SS — although the amount paid in will eventually be enough to cover only about 75% of scheduled benefits, once the Trust Fund has been depleted. However, in the case of Medicare, the taxes paid in don’t begin to cover the cost. Medicare payroll taxes only cover Medicare Part A, and the lifetime amount most people pay in will be far short of the hospital benefits they will receive in retirement. The premiums we pay for Medicare Part B coverage (doctors and outpatient services) cover only 25% of Part B cost, with rest picked up by the general fund. Same for prescription drug coverage.
As for taxes not paid due to deductions, both liberal and conservative economists agree that things like the mortgage interest deduction are aptly named “tax expenditures,” because they are no different than if you submitted a bill to the government for your mortgage interest and they sent you a check back to cover part of it. It’s a subsidy that benefits a relatively small slice of the population (the Bay Area being a big part of that slice).
November 13th, 2012 at 4:54 pm
The Petreaus comic opera gets funnier every day.
Who’s boffing who, and who’s complaining about it.
Coming soon: Hilary’s lesbian lover and the Ayrab smoking dope in the oval office.
November 14th, 2012 at 10:20 am
OK you old dudes: Who is more attractive, Paula or Jill?
November 14th, 2012 at 1:21 pm
@ 54
Jill.
No contest.
November 14th, 2012 at 1:28 pm
Re: 53
Coming soon: I’m pretty sure there is something going on between Lindsey and John (Graham and McCain). They seem angrier since Joe Lieberman left the threesome.
November 15th, 2012 at 8:44 pm
John (Re 46),
“They are not for “big government,” but are for a lot of stuff that adds up to that.”
Unfortunately, many Americans do not perceive that when they accept “a lot of (government) stuff”, they almost invariably surrender a degree of freedom or control.
I believe one of our founders has taught that when we give up our liberty for more security, we neither deserve liberty nor security and therefore lose both (Ben Franklin).