Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

If there is a third tier [of presidential candidates,] it would include...Congresswoman Michele Bachman of Minnesota. [She] would have a difficult time being considered a serious candidate.

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

Is there any doubt that Obama will put the screws on Israel to come close to doing what people like Jeffrey Goldberg insist "my President" will not do, which is force Israel to make dangerous concessions? 

When there is no reelection on the horizon, when Jewish campaign donors have no Obama campaign to which they can contribute, when the opinions of the vast majority of Americans don't matter, when Obama is free of the constraints of the political process.... that's when you will see the full force of Obama come into play to force a "historic" peace deal.

Bret Stephens makes that point in The Wall Street Journal:

What Mr. Obama offered is a formula for war, one that he will pursue in a second term. Assuming, of course, that he gets one.

That's the most troubling thing. 

Goldberg and others are afraid that Netanyahu upset Obama by speaking up for Israel.  Quite the contrary, Obama is going to do what he wants to do regardless of whether Netanyahu speaks up or not, and it only will get worse in a second term.

So it was better for Netanyahu to engage on the issue of whether the pre-1967 borders are on the table, while Obama's reelection still is on the table.

Update:  Thanks to commenter @Timb for the quote which proves that Obama adopted the Palestinian position: "the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps...."  That was not the Israeli position or the U.S. position.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

A report commissioned by the City of Providence finds that then Mayor, now Congressman, David Cicilline is responsible for the fiscal mess, which has been the subject of numerous prior posts here.  Most famously, Providence recently was forced to issue preemptive termination notices to every teacher in the Providence School District to provide the flexibility.

The report, released today, as summarized by The Providence Journal, made the following findings which for which Cicilline was to blame:

-- "The Administration transferred funds from the Undesignated Surplus (Rainy-Day Fund) without approval of a majority vote of the City Council as required."

-- "The Administration did not provide financial information on a timely basis to the independent auditor, the City Council or the Internal Auditor."

-- "The Administration did not provide the City Council with monthly financial statements or with projections of year-end surpluses or deficits."

-- "The Administration prepared budgets based on unrealistic assumptions."

-- "The Administration was not transparent in its use of the City's Capital Assets Account."

-- "Financial reports submitted to the State were inaccurate."

-- "The City Council's checks-and-balances on the Administration were ineffective."

Cicilline regularly attempts to blame prior finance problems, cuts in state aid, and general economic factors for the disaster Cicilline left behind.  The report rejects such claims in the opening paragraphs, laying the blame directly at the feet of Cicilline (emphasis mine):

The national recession, the collapse of the housing market, and the unprecedented reduction in state aid had a dramatic impact on the financial health of the City of Providence. Between fiscal years 2008 and 2011 state aid was reduced by 19% or $49.6 million. The last fiscal year the City ended with balanced budget was 2008. In fiscal years 2009 through 2011, the City relied on non-recurring revenues (i.e. reserve funds and borrowings) to balance its budget. During the same period the City’s “Rainy-Day Fund” shrunk from $22.4 million to $2.0 million.

While factors and events beyond the City’s control contributed to Providence’s weakening financial condition, the prior Administration did not recommend the difficult choices necessary to avert a fiscal crisis. The Administration did not present a corrective action plan that could have minimized the pending financial melt-down that the City has experienced. Furthermore, the City’s financial challenges have been made more difficult to address because of a dysfunctional financial management system. A system where communication between the Administration and the City Council was problematic, where deadlines for providing information were missed, where an operating budget was enacted seven months after the fiscal year began, where requirements of the City Charter were ignored, where unrealistic budgetary assumptions were presented, and where effective monitoring of the Administration by the City Council was made difficult and was thus lacking.

During the campaign last fall, Cicilline misrepresented the financial condition of Providence, issuing press releases like this one:

"Fortunately, the strong fiscal health that Providence has maintained under Mayor Cicilline’s leadership made it possible to hold the line on taxes and still balance the City’s budget. That made a lot more sense than raising taxes in the middle of a painful recession.”

In typical Cicilline style, he continues to deny any wrongdoing or accept personal responsibility.  And picking up on his campaign tactic from last fall, Cicilline has launched another tour of senior centers to scare the elderly over proposed changes to Medicare.

While Cicilline is obfuscating over his personal responsibility and scaring seniors, John Loughlin -- who ran a solid but ultimately unsuccessful campaign against Cicilline last fall -- is headed back to Iraq as part of his National Guard service. 

The contrast between Cicilline and Loughlin could not be more stark, and I hope Loughlin mounts a challenge to Cicilline in 2012, in the event Cicilline refuses to do the right thing and refuses resign.

Update:  Cicilline is throwing his staff under the bus:

Congressman David Cicilline says as mayor he never told anyone in his administration to bypass the City Council by transferring money out of Providence’s reserve funds without approval, as alleged in a report set for release this morning.

“I did not, nor would I ever direct anyone who worked for me, to bypass any required Council approval,” Cicilline said Tuesday during a half-hour interview with WPRI.com in his Pawtucket district office. Asked if that meant such an action – if taken – happened without his approval, he replied: “That is correct.”

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Will David Cicilline (D-RI) Be At The News Conference About The Mess He Left Behind In Providence?
What Did Former Providence Mayor David Cicilline (D-RI) Know, And When Did He Know It?
In Rhode Island, Nothing Succeeds Like Failure

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

That's the headline you will not see.  Instead, you will see this headline: 

"Obama Approval Ratings On The Rise Among Millennials, Especially on College Campuses, Harvard Poll Finds."

And this headline:

Obama Job Approval Rises Among Young Voters: Millennials More Likely To Vote Obama Than GOP Candidate In 2012

And this headline:

Poll: Young voters increasingly happy with Obama

Because all those headline and story writers are comparing the Harvard poll in question to last fall, but Obama's approval remains below where it was in November 2009 and far below where it was in 2008.

Look at the chart below from the Harvard poll.  It shows increases in approval for everyone, including Republicans and Democrats in Congress.  Here is the chart from the executive summary of the poll:


The Yutes is simply happier these days than a few months ago. 

But it doesn't stop there.  Neither the headline-making report nor other Harvard poll reports that I could find measure attitudes towards Obama going back to the fall of 2008.  But other surveys indicate Obama won the youth vote by far larger measures. 

While the two data sets (job approval ratings versus actual vote) may not be identical, it is informative that Obama won the youth vote overwhelmingly in 2008:

Young voters [18-29] preferred Obama over John McCain by 68 percent to 30 percent — the highest share of the youth vote obtained by any candidate since exit polls began reporting results by age in 1976, according to CIRCLE, a non-partisan organization that promotes research on the political engagement of Americans between ages 15 and 25.

Compare that number to the number who now say, in the current Harvard poll, they will vote for Obama over a generic Republican opponent:

Obama's support among young voters has dropped from 68% who voted for him in 2008 to 38%  who now say they will vote for him now ("unsure" was not on the ballot in 2008, so it's hard to account for that, but clearly Obamamania among the youths has dropped).

So there we have it.  Everyone is rising in approval ratings of young voters since last fall, and Obama's support among young voters remains far below fall 2008 and even below fall 2009.

But what do we get in the headlines?  The same thing we got in 2008, Obamamania.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

Public Policy Polling (PPP) is a long-time Democratic pollster, which last year became the official pollster for DailyKos.

PPP is prolific in its polling, with new polls released almost daily.  I have linked to PPP's polls in the past.  PPP has a good knack for finding headline-grabbing topics.

But since the November elections, I have noticed an almost non-stop release of polls which are presented by PPP as signaling bad news for Republican.  It is as if on November 2 Republicans were the toast of the country, but on November 3 they were just toast.

Perhaps because PPP has a tendency to put a very political spin on its polling results, and because the spin has been doom and gloom for Republicans, I have begun receiving a steady stream of e-mails complaining that PPP's polling samples were skewed against Republicans. 

I pretty much wrote off such complaints at first as the usual type of griping which happens when people don't like poll results.  Rasmussen regularly is skewered in the left-blogosphere because the left-wing blogs don't like the results.  If PPP's polling samples and methodology are legitimate, it is not fair to criticize the results.  Maybe the world did end for Republicans on November 3.

But a poll released yesterday by PPP caused me finally to dig into PPP's sample data.  In a poll which has received enormous attention and warmed the hearts of public sector union supporters, PPP found that in a "do over," current Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker would lose to the person he beat in November, Tom Barrett.

Here is part of how PPP's Tom Jensen described the results:

"We'll have our full poll on the Wisconsin conflict out tomorrow but here's the most interesting finding:if voters in the state could do it over today they'd support defeated Democratic nominee Tom Barrett over Scott Walker by a a 52-45 margin.

The difference between how folks would vote now and how they voted in November can almost all be attributed to shifts within union households. Voters who are not part of union households have barely shifted at all- they report having voted for Walker by 7 points last fall and they still say they would vote for Walker by a 4 point margin. But in households where there is a union member voters now say they'd go for Barrett by a 31 point margin, up quite a bit from the 14 point advantage they report having given him in November."

But looking at the data behind the poll reveals that PPP used a sample skewed against Walker voters and towards union households.

The people answering the poll identified themselves as evenly split in how they voted last November, 47-47:


But the actual results in the election were in favor of Walker 52.3-46.5, as this chart from The New York Times shows. 


So the sample used in the PPP poll seriously underweighted Walker voters by almost 6%.

Additionally, the PPP sample contained 32% union households:


But in Wisconsin, only 26% of households are union households, as this chart from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel shows:


So the PPP sample overweighted union households by 6%.

Put together, the PPP voter sample used to show a huge swing since November appears to have accomplished the result by underweighting Walker voters and overweighting union households.  This is particularly important since PPP claims (in the quote above) that it was a shift in union household voting patterns which was most prominent.

I posted a comment at PPP's blog last night asking Mr. Jensen for an explanation and pointing out the very issues raised in this post.  As of this writing, there has been no response.  If Jensen does respond, I will post the response.

Perhaps I'm missing something here.  After all, I'm not a professional pollster, I'm just someone who read the data behind the headline.  I understand that polling firms sometimes adjust data when the underlying sample is skewed; but there is no indication PPP has done that.

It is not fair to criticize PPP's results just because one doesn't like the results.  But it is fair to examine the data behind the poll, which is something I will be doing with more frequency with PPP in the upcoming election cycle. 

*   *   *   *

You can help me.  If you believe that there are substantive problems with PPP polls, please e-mail me with specifics.  I'm not interested in name-calling or conspiracy theories.  But if you can document sampling or other errors similar to what I have done above, I would love to hear from you.

Update:  Allahpundit and Ed Morrissey at HotAir also have noticed sampling problems with a CBS/NY Times poll just released purporting to show strong union support.

PPP also released at 10 this morning more complete results of its Wisconsin polling, with some more headline-grabbing conclusions -- such as voters siding with the Senate Democrats -- but based on the same voter sample which underweighted Walker voters and overweighted union households, and accompanied by this disclaimer which was not on the results released yesterday (emphasis mine):

"PPP surveyed 768 Wisconsin voters from February 24th to 27th. The survey’s margin of error is +/-3.5%.  Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify."

Update 2:10 p.m. - Jensen has not responded, but another person at PPP (Dustin Ingalls) responded to a series of questions posed by commenters, as follows (emphasis mine):

"Is this a poll of registered or likely voters?"


Registered.

"do you think there's any reason in particular regarding the difference of reported 2008/2010 #s from actual ones?"

Yeah, different voters turning out/responding to the poll. Last year's formula was quite simple: record GOP turnout, and a depressed Democratic base in Wisconsin meant one of the country's largest "enthusiasm gaps." 2012 will probably not be quite as historic a Democratic turnout as 2008 was, but much closer to 2008 than 2010. Our poll is of registered voters, but the more interested you are in politics and voting, the more likely you are to answer the phone and stay on the line for the whole poll, which mirrors their likelihood of voting. Registered voter polls for presidential elections, which have wider turnout than midterms, are closer barometers of the turnout than registered voter polls for a midterm, which see a much narrower and less predictable set of voters turn out, and tend to lean GOP anyway, particularly last year.

"Sample appears seriously skewed. 47% say voted for Walker, but reality of election result was 52.3% so seriously underweight Walker voters. Also, sample is 32% from union households, but only 26% in Wisconsin from union households, so overweight union households."

See what I said above. A lot of potential Barrett voters who will vote in 2012 (or would vote now) stayed home last fall and have been even further galvanized by this fiasco. Also, 26% and 32% aren't a whole lot different, but union voters are a pretty well organized bunch. They turn out at a higher rate than some non-union voters, meaning they'll make up a larger share of the electorate than their share of the overall population.

"Did you also poll the Republicans vs Obama and/or the Republican primary? Will we have those reslts later today, tomorrow or when?"

Dude, do you understand the concept of patience? We release one set of results each day during the week. That's been our M.O. for a long time.

March 1, 2011 1:11 PM

The 26% figure comes from 2010? Of course it'd be higher now, since union members have been stirred to action. It'd probably even be higher than in 2008 if an election were held now. If unions and the Democratic Party in the state can keep those workers angry and organized, that anger could probably cause an even bluer election in 2012 than 2008. If it subsides, you're still looking at an election closer in turnout to 2008 than 2010. Do Republicans think 2010 was the norm and that voters shifted to the right?

March 1, 2011 1:22 PM

Seems like a very weak response to me, as it attempts to excuse a clear skew in the sample by speculating that there would be higher turnout numbers only on one side if the election were held how.  Well, maybe there would be higher turnout numbers on both sides.  There is no evidence given to support such speculation.  I hope that this does not represent the level of PPP analysis.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

United States Congressman David Cicilline (D-RI), regarding the termination notices sent to Providence school teachers because of budget problems:

"U.S. Rep. David Cicilline said Monday that the $57-million-plus deficit facing Providence will require looking at personnel reductions, union concessions and looking at reserve funds."

Now he tells us.

Cicilline was the Mayor of Providence until he was elected last November to the Congress.  Cicilline never took any of these hard decisions or actions, because it would have upset the numerous unions who backed him in the primaries and general election.

--------------------------------------------
Related Post:
In Rhode Island, Nothing Succeeds Like Failure

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

I have posted here many times about my quirky home State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, particularly the union-controlled legislature, deficit-ridden municipalities, and Democratic hegemony:

• Rhode Island Dem Launches "Let's Scare Grandma" Tour
• Rhode Island Becoming A Sanctuary State
• Unions Rescued In Rhode Island
• In RI, Public Sector Unions Are The State
• Pension System "Choking The State"
• High Taxes And Union Pensions Are Killing Rhode Island. Duh!

Thanks to readers Tom and James for each e-mailing me a link to this article by Steve Malanga, Rhode Island: A Fiscal Mess Few Care About, which pretty nicely sums up the situation:

Though smaller than its neighbors, Rhode Island very much bears the stamp of Northeastern politics and governing. It has the third highest level of public employee unionization in the country, 64 percent, behind New York and Connecticut. Its government is among the top 10 in the nation in per capita spending and in the tax burden it imposes on residents, plus the state has one of the least attractive business environments, according to the Tax Foundation.

Rhode Island's long-term obligations compare unfavorably with just about any other state, and that's saying a lot. An evaluation of state finances by the Daily Beast recently ranked Rhode Island the state most likely to go bust because of the combination of its budget deficit, outstanding debt and unfunded pension liabilities relative to economic capacity. Moody's, which recently issued a report on combined municipal debt and outstanding pension obligations for the states, ranked Rhode Island among the most troubled states on a variety of metrics, including combined liabilities as a percent of GDP and as a percent of state revenues.

While none of this is news to readers of this blog, there was a section of Malanga's article which was news to me (emphasis mine):

The state's spendthrift political culture infects its local governments. A recent audit revealed that Rhode Island's biggest city, Providence, has been spending more than it budgets throughout the recession and depleting its reserve funds in the process, to the point where the city is almost out of cash. Last year alone the city overspent its budget by $13.9 million, bringing its reserve down to just $3.5 million, barely one-tenth of where it should be. The city council has approved borrowing some $48 million this year to cover its deficit.

I don't think the voters of Providence will attempt to hold the Mayor of Providence during this time period, David Cicilline, responsible for the fact that Providence is almost out of cash.  That's because Cicilline no longer is mayor, and is unlikely to run again.

You see, Rhode Island's 1st District voters rewarded Cicilline with a promotion.  To the United States Congress:



--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

Mike Stopa was a candidate for Congress in the Republican primary in Massachusetts, and a focus of some posts here, including about his plan on how to dismantle Obamacare based on the experience in Massachusetts.

Now Mike has written a column for The Boston Globe sure to get people talking, The Reality of Death Panels.  Here's the punch line:

"... Palin is right. Death panels are an inevitable consequence of socialized medicine. The law of scarcity demands them."

Read the column for how Mike reaches that conclusion.
 
--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Americans Refudiated Death Panels, Before Paul Krugman Was For Them
Look Who's Worried About Death Panels Now
An Inconvenient Truth About The "Death Panel"

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

I have been addressing in some detail the assertion that Sarah Palin should not be seriously considered by Republican voters because Palin cannot win a general election, so I will not repeat myself. 

Admittedly, I have been somewhat narrow in my focus, driven by circumstances that the "can't win" meme is being used currently against Palin almost exclusively.   (Obamacrats — “She can’t win”, describes how the "can't win" strategy works.)

The issue is not Sarah Palin.

The issue is whether we will demoralize voters who would work hard to elect a Republican -- even a Republican not quite to their liking -- in the general election provided the primary process were viewed as fair and open.

We saw in the 2010 elections that Tea Party supporters are among the most loyal.  Where Tea Party candidates lost primaries, Tea Party supporters rallied around the winner, or at least did not actively seek to undermine the winners.  By contrast, the moment establishment candidates lost, there were active attempts in some races by establishment Republicans (and unfortunately, some of the conservative blogosphere) to undermine the candidates.

There is no better way to demoralize a key segment of the Republican Party, and damage our chances in November 2012, than to announce a year before the primaries even begin that Palin should not even enter the primary fray or should not be seriously considered because she cannot win a general election.

We do not need the Republican equivalents of 2008 Democratic PUMAs, people so embittered by the perceived unfairness of the primary process that they stayed home or switched sides in November.  And that will be the result of attempts to shut Palin out of the process through the "can't win" strategy. 

The same holds true for other potential Republican candidates -- let them all enter the primaries and let them all be seriously considered regardless of what polling tells us now is the likelihood of success. 

Let's have a process focused on issues, and yes, as part of the process electability inevitably is going to be one of the issues.  But let's not undermine ourselves by telling Sarah Palin, or Tim Pawlenty, or Mitch Daniels, or Mitt Romney or anyone else that they are wasting our time by running because they cannot win a general election. 

And let's not insult their supporters with the same message.  Remember, after the primaries the Lombardi Rule will take effect, and we are going to have to unite to defeat the billion-dollar candidate.

If "she can't win" is the means by which one of the candidates wins the Republican nomination, then we can't win either.

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Washington Post Now Not Even Trying To Hide Its Hatred Of Sarah Palin
It Sounds So Much Better Read Out Loud

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

To read some of the reviews telling Sarah Palin it's over as to any hope of winning a general election, you would think she would be down in the polls versus Obama by an enormous margin, particularly if a poll were taken in the days after the Tucson shooting when the media was in full blame mode tying Palin's electoral map to the shooting.

But if this poll conducted January 9-12 by Greenberg Quinlin Rosner, a Democratic polling firm, for Democracy Corps is accurate, Palin is down 10% among voters and 6% among people who vote in 2010:

This is a significant margin, but hardly the end of times predicted by many.  Much of Obama's strongest support comes from "drop off voters," i.e., those who didn't vote in mid-year elections.  (I get this definition from another Greenberg survey using such definition.)  Motivating the base and getting out people who didn't vote in 2010 would seem to be a key for Obama in 2012.

Mitt Romney, the only other candidate tested versus Obama, did better, basically coming out even:

I don't know about the accuracy of this polling firm, but the poll is being touted by Democrats because of other findings supposedly showing that the public is not as against Obamacare as generally thought.

Considering the beating Palin took in the media during the days in which the poll was being conducted, being down 10% is much better than would have been expected.

How about we let the primary process work, instead of throwing candidates overboard based on perceptions which may or may not be accurate, and which in any event are premature.

Update 1-20-2011:  PPP has released a poll showing Obama much stronger than in the Greenberg poll, up 17 points over Palin and 5 points over Romney.  I am generally skeptical of PPP, a Democratic polling firm which does the polling for DailyKos, for reasons I hope to articulate in a post in the future.  I don't so much question its polling as such, but the way the polling seems to be formulated to push Democratic messaging.  It's hard to find a PPP poll since the November election which is not spun as deep trouble for Republicans.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

Ed Koch, former Mayor of New York City, has come to the defense of Sarah Palin regarding her use of the term "blood libel" to describe the malicious and false accusations that Palin's electoral target map contributed to the Tucson shootings (emphasis mine):

Today the phrase "blood libel" can be used to describe any monstrous defamation against any person, Jew or non-Jew. It was used by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon when he was falsely accused of permitting the Lebanese Christian militia to kill hundreds of defenseless and innocent Muslim men, women and children in Lebanese refugee camps. The killings were monstrous and indefensible revenge for earlier killings by Muslims of innocent Christian civilians.

Time Magazine published a story implying that Sharon was directly responsible for the massacres. He sued the magazine. At trial it was determined that the magazine story included false allegations, but since Sharon was a public figure, he received no monetary damages.

How dare Sarah Palin, cried the commentators, use that phrase to describe the criticism of her by those who blamed her for creating the atmosphere that set Loughner off in his murderous madness. Some took the position that it proved their ongoing charges that she is not an intelligent person and probably did not know what the phrase meant historically. In my opinion, she was right to denounce her critics and use blood libel to describe the unfair criticism that she had been subject to.

It is so interesting that the punditry seems more interested in nit-picking Palin's verbiage, even though that verbiage demonstrably was consistent with modern usage of the term "blood libel, rather than denouncing the people who spread the lie that Palin was responsible for the Tucson shooting -- a lie believed by 56% of Democrats and 35% of the nation overall.

It's 2012 folks, and the media will do whatever it can to destroy Republican candidates.  This is just the beginning.

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
The Dilemma of Someone Libeled - Palin Edition
Alan Dershowitz, Praised
60 Minutes On Loughner

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

Ms. Speaker, tear down that nameplate:

Here is an image of the doorway in happier (for Pelosi) days.

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Bumper Stickers - The Series

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

There is a nice bit of revisionist and self-congratulatory history at FrumForum, in a piece titled How Christine O'Donnell Brought Down The Delaware GOP.

I'll save you the trouble and high blood pressure of reading the article, here's the story line:

Christine O'Donnell singlehandedly caused Republicans down the line, all the way to dog catcher, to lose to Democrats in Delaware state elections.

The proof?  None, other than that Republicans lost.

So why is O'Donnell to blame?

Why not Mike Castle, the loser in the primary who took his ball home, played the part of spoiled brat, and took the rest of the Delaware GOP machine with him?

Why isn't it just as justifiable to blame Castle and the Delaware Republican Party for not backing the primary winner, sniping at her, and demoralizing Republican voters?  While unity may not have resulted in an O'Donnell win, perhaps it would have avoided down the line disaster.

The FrumForum article is more establishment nonsense from people who are unwilling to admit that their guy in Delaware destroyed the state party because of his ego and hurt feelings.

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
The Murkowski-Castle Senate Would Have Been A Disaster
Memo to the Right: "The Lombardi Rule" Is In Effect
Japan Won WWII and The Tea Party Lost The Mid-Terms

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

Imagine a place where legislators who had been thrown out of office hurried to pass legislation they knew would not pass once the new Congress was seated in order to defeat the will of the people as expressed in recent congressional elections.

Such a thing could not happen here, because our lame duck representatives understand that to enact sweeping changes meant to bind an incoming Congress would lack political legitimacy and be subject to international ridicule:

The current congress, with an overwhelming majority of pro-Chavez members, voted Tuesday to grant him special powers to enact laws by decree for the next year. The National Assembly is expected to give final approval to the measure by the end of the week.

Chavez critics say the action, which would be the fourth time in 12 years the populist president has been given temporary decree powers, is a clear effort to sideline the next congress, which will have enough opposition members to block such action.

Thank goodness we are not Venezuela.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

This is not the post you probably were expecting from me given my harsh -- and as always prescient -- criticism of Republicans in the lame duck session.  I was screaming "capitulation!" before screaming "capitulation!" was fashionable.

Notwithstanding the lame duck session, give Mitch McConnell some credit for the war which has been fought the past two years. 

When Obama took office, Republicans had been routed in two consecutive elections.  With Democrats having an overwhelming majority in the House, and a near filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, there was not much the Republican leadership could do.

As I noted before, in my post Some of Our Finest Hours, a variety of players and people fought valiant political battles to slow down the Obama onslaught.  Those battles, particularly over Obamacare, created the landscape which led to victories in 2010.

But there was only so much McConnell could do. 

All Obama had to do was flip one or two Republicans on an issue, and the filibuster was meaningless.  Yet, McConnell managed to keep Republicans on the same page as to Obamacare (as did John Boehner and Eric Cantor in the House), so that Democrats owned Obamacare completely.

In light of the November elections, the lame duck session has been something of a disaster.  The "tax deal" has been spun -- as I predicted -- as an Obama victory and move to the center.  In reality, it was neither, but perception is everything  in politics.

But the defeat of the Omnibus bill was an enormous victory which will give the incoming Republican House a chance to kill Obamacare in its infancy, and to impose fiscal discipline.  Again, McConnell managed to keep Republicans sufficiently together to kill the bill and force Harry Reid into his one humiliating defeat in the lame duck session.

Most of the damage in the lame duck session came, once again, from a handful of Republicans -- some of whom are leaving office -- not holding to their pledge to stall votes on any legislation until taxes and the budget resolution were passed.  And as National Journal found, Lisa Murkowski was Obama's best friend in the lame duck session; I'm not sure what McConnell could do about that.

But the lame duck session, as dismal as it has been, cannot define the past two years.

Against overwhelming odds in which the defeat of the Obama agenda was not possible, the best that could be hoped for was to get Obama and the Democrats stuck in the mud, to have them advance to places they did not want to be, and to set up the stage for the electoral counterattack.

I'm not a military historian or tactician, but I do understand the concept of prepping the battlefield.  That is as true in politics as in war.

For his role in prepping the 2010 political battlefield, for getting Obama and Democrats stuck in the mud of their own creating, and for giving us the possibility of significant gains in the coming years, Mitch McConnell deserves our praise.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

The lame duck session has been a pathetic joke on Republicans and conservatives who thought they won the elections in November. 

An illegitimate Democratic House and near filibuster-proof Democratic Senate have run roughshod on most issues, and several Republicans have helped them along.

Unfortunately, we have numerous weak links, some of whom will be gone in a couple of weeks and others of whom will no longer be links waiting to be broken. 

Once the new Senate is seated, two or three Republican Senators cannot bust a filibuster, so the people who have held sway over our political landscape by virtue of their eagerness to jump ship no longer will have any bargaining power.  And nothing will come out of the House worth filibustering.

Lindsey Graham has it right:

"When it's all going to be said and done, Harry Reid has eaten our lunch. This has been a capitulation in two weeks of dramatic proportions of policies that wouldn't have passed in the new Congress."

Good riddance to the Bush-era Republican Party.  January 5 can't come fast enough.

Update: Dan Riehl, If Reid Ate The GOP's Lunch, Graham And Company Packed It For Him

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Demoralizing The Troops
Read Our Lips - No Votes Until Tax Rates And The Budget Resolution Are Passed

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

I'm not talking about DADT or the military troops.

I'm talking about the political troops who worked their rear ends off to take back the House of Representatives and narrow the gap in the Senate, only to watch Barack Obama and Harry Reid run circles in the closing weeks of the lame duck session around Republicans on everything except the Omnibus bill and the Dream Act.

Nothing of a non-emergency nature should take place in a lame duck session, and Republicans should have stuck to their original guns.  It is absurd and illegitimate that the fate of the nation for years or decades to come is being decided by people who have been thrown out of office.

The "tax deal" bizarrely has become Obama's feather in the cap, and the pledge by Republicans not to allow any votes until both tax rates and a budget resolution were passed was reduced to a "read my lips" moment. 

Several Republican Senators who will not be in the Senate in two weeks were a weak link exploited by Reid to the breaking point.

Maybe it's that the daylight has been getting shorter until tomorrow, but it's been a demoralizing December.

Update:  Is there a light at the end of December?

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has a warning for Democrats seething over his shrewd political tactics: Get used to it.

“There’s much for them to be angst-ridden about,” McConnell said with a chuckle. “If they think it’s bad now, wait ‘til next year.”

Emboldened by Democrats’ decision to scrap an omnibus funding bill and extend the Bush-era tax cuts for two years, McConnell is ready to deploy his larger Republican minority next year, insisting that Democratic leaders will need to bend to his party’s will – particularly on spending issues.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

The Omnibus bill was pulled last night by Harry Reid after several Republicans who were considering voting for it reversed course.

The Omnibus bill was defeated because of you and millions of others like you who let their voices be heard on the internet, radio airwaves, through emails and phone calls, and most of all, at the voting booth in November.  Your efforts not only influenced Republicans in the Senate, but also Democrats who are up for reelection in 2012.

I had Reid wrong.  I thought that he was using the Omnibus bill as a bargaining chip, because it seemed so insane to try to push through such a monstrosity at the last minute in light of November. 

But no, Reid actually wanted Omnibus to pass.  As with Obamacare, the personal empowerment of shoving another massive bill down the throats of the American people was more important to Reid than the contents of the bill or the survival of his own party.

But you prevailed over Reid, and though Reid still has some priorities before they turn out the lights on the 111th Congress, the defeat of the Omnibus bill was monumental. 

The 112th Congress now will decide such important matters as the start-up funding of Obamacare, and whether we can stem the tide of earmarks.  Earmarks are the currency with which congressional votes are purchased, and the elimination of earmarks will be a first step in getting congressmen to vote on the merits of legislation as opposed to jockeying for a new arts center or monument in their home districts.

There is much work to be done.  But for what happened last night, give yourself a pat on the back.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

Another rush of legislation, taxes, budget, and a host of social agenda items.

We've seen this bad movie before.  It resulted in Stimulus, and the Christmas Eve Obamacare vote last year.

And it appears to be happening again.

This lame duck Congress has no political legitimacy to pass anything other than a continuing budget resolution (including defense) to keep the government operating until the new Congress can consider a full budget, and perhaps to straighten out the tax situation since taxes will rise before the new Congress is seated if nothing is done.

Much beyond that, Mitch McConnell should be shutting down the Senate.

Sweeping social legislation and other non-emergency items should be deferred until the new Congress, rather than having several dozen Congressman and several Senators who have been voted out of or are leaving office decide the fate of such matters.  If these social agenda items were such a priority, they could have been brought up months ago, when Congressmen with a political stake in the vote were voting.

Mitch McConnell has a chance to earn the trust of the voters who have given him six new votes, and provided him with the backing of an incoming Republican House.  Don't blow it.

Update:  A commenter asks "How can we make sure Senator McConnell gets this message loud and clear?"  His Washington office phone number is 202-224-2541, and the e-mail contact form is here.  As always, be polite.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

The attack dogs are out, and they're not Democratic.

They are Republicans who "knew Reagan" and play the phony "you're no Reagan" or "how dare you compare yourself to Reagan" or "how dare you put down Reagan," or some variation on that theme, against Sarah Palin.

The latest is Ed Rollins (Palin, I knew Reagan. You're no Reagan.), who just happens to be Mike Huckabee's former campaign manager, doing his best impression of Joe Scarborough, Kathleen Parker and Peggy Noonan.

Okay, so you knew Reagan.  His greatness and class obviously didn't rub off on you.

What have you done for us lately? 

How many Congressional seats did you help win in the mid-terms, how much money did you raise for non-establishment candidates, what have you ever done in the past twenty years other than run your mouth and put down other Republicans for your own personal aggrandizement?

So the next time those of you who want to tear apart the successful Republican coalition for your own personal fame and ambition want to invoke Reagan's name, don't.

Update:  The Republican Party Can't Win Without The Support of Palin Supporters.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube