Monday, November 22, 2010

George H.W. Bush A Fan Of Mitt Romney Too!?

Recently, I wrote a blog about how George W. Bush was a secret fan of Mitt Romney. It appears that George H.W. Bush and his wife are also fans of Mitt Romney. They expressed their opinion of him on the Larry King Live show
Both Bushes mentioned former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney as a possible Republican contender for a likely race against incumbent President Barack Obama two years from now.
"He's a reasonable guy," George Bush said of Romney. "He's a conservative fellow, that's good. But no, I think he'd be a good president, a very good president."
I guess the entire Bush clan are big fans of Mitt Romney!

How TEA Party "Leaders" Are Betrarying The TEA Party

Recently, a Utah Tea Party leader and a national Tea party leader have spoken out against Mitt Romney for various positions that he has taken. Having TEA party leaders giving or withholding endorsements troubles me. This isn't a new concern of mine. I've expressed my concern on this issue in a previous article.
I have some new additional concerns that I did not express in the earlier article. Lured by the temptation of political power, these leaders are betraying the very principles of what made the TEA Party so successful  and powerful in the first place.
One of the most popular books among the Tea Party movement is "The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations" in which the book argues that leaderless organizations are more effective than governments and corporations in making positive changes to society. Politico explains why the book was a political bestseller in 2009:
"The book was first published in 2006 — three years before the tea party movement burst onto the scene with mass protests against what it regarded as President Barack Obama’s unchecked expansion of government. But the idea that scrappy starfish groups can beat imposing spider institutions resonates deeply with tea partiers, who have vigilantly enforced their occasionally chaotic structure against would-be leaders, an eager GOP, and conventional Washington wisdom questioning whether an infrastructureless group can succeed in Big Money electoral politics."
By having people who are claiming to be "official" representatives of the Tea Party movement, they are transforming and diluting the movement that made it so effective. The power behind this group is that it was a leaderless grassroots movement in which like minded people who were outraged about the growing size and scope of the federal government as well as the financial irresponsibility that came along with increasingly expansive government. Nobody was elected to the the official spokesperson. And there was never an intent to have spokesperson for the group. And while some of these groups and many individuals have had a positive overall effect, they do NOT represent the movement. But by becoming an organized political organization, the voices of millions of people will be ignored because its much easier to get a single representative on television rather than talk to a wide variety of people to get their feelings on a particular issue.   
You would think that Mitt Romney possesses the qualities TEA partiers dream of in their 2012 candidate. Braden at Dear Tea Party, Mitt Romney is Your Friend explains why this is: 
"Based on issues alone, it would be logical to conclude that Mitt Romney is in agreement with the vast majority of Tea Party principles. He balanced the budget for four consecutive years in a blue state without raising taxes. Isn't that what the TEA in Tea Party stands for, Taxed Enough Already? The very premise of the Tea Party movement is in accordance with Romney's record.
But what about RomneyCare? RomneyCare, signed into law by Romney in 2006, is a state-based healthcare plan with striking similarities to ObamaCare. However, unlike ObamaCare, RomneyCare did not raise taxes. But the bigger and more important difference is that RomneyCare was a state program and not a federal one. If states' rights and federalism are truly important to the Tea Party, they would readily recognize this distinction. And on top of all this, Romney has consistently voiced his support for the repeal of ObamaCare."
Braden doesn't make the point explicitly, but essentially what he's saying is that there is a growing inconsistency between what the TEA party movement stands for and what they're willing to support. There are many within the movement who claim fidelity to the Constitution, federalism, the 10th Amendment, and the will of “The People” but only when it suits them. Thus, the comments from the local and national TEA party "leaders" is nothing more than them cherry picking conservative ideas they want support and don't support.
RomneyCare is 100% a state rights issue. Mitt Romney proposed a health care plan that would apply  Massachusetts and only to Massachusetts. Moreover, the people of Mass overwhelmingly supported RomneyCare then and they support it now. 
Braden thinks that reason behind opposition to Mitt Romney within certain ranks of the TEA party movement is based on irrational fear. I think its based on irrational anger. The American people have every right to be upset with Obama instituting his health care plan despite overwhelming opposition to it. However, what is bizzare is their anger towards Mitt Romney.
Here's why I find the anger towards RomneyCare so irrational. After the conservative wave of in the Congressional elections of1994, Bill Clinton decided to boost his popularity by stealing a conservative idea: welfare reform. Conservatives had twice attempted to pass welfare reform but he vetoed them. However, Clinton got Congress to pass the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, also known as the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. Not only did he steal the idea but his plan was conservative to the core. He is still proud of signing the law
I don't recall conservatives getting mad at Newt Gingrich for partnering with Bill Clinton on reforming welfare. In fact, it was liberals and progressives who were mad at Clinton for signing a conservative piece of legislation. Even three members in the Clinton Administration were so angry at Bill that they resigned after the law was passed. Why were they so upset with Bill Clinton? They were not upset with the conservatives who were successful on their third attempt to reform welfare based on conservative principles but they were upset with him because he abandoned liberalism and progressive ideas when he signed the law.
In contrast, what Obama did was to take a conservative idea, corrupt it by changing the conservative idea into a progressive one, and foisted it on the America people. Liberals and progressives are happy with Obama. Its no mystery why Conservatives are unhappy with Obama. 
But they're also unhappy with Mitt Romney. That is a mystery to me. Unlike Bill Clinton who abandoned his party's beliefs and principles in signing the conservative welfare reform into law, Mitt Romney didn't abandon or betray any conservative principles when he created RomneyCare. Mitt got his idea for state wide individual mandates from the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation and simply integrated that idea into his health care plan. After all, the idea for individual mandates was alternative proposal to HilliaryCare during the Clinton Administration.
Thus, the only explanation I can think of is that they're angry for Romney simply because Obama used and corrupted Romney's plan. Now that Obama corrupted the conservative idea of individual mandates, many conservatives who were once for it are now against it. If Obama hadn't perverted the conservative idea of individual mandates, many conservatives would have been supportive of RomneyCare. And that, to me, is irrational anger towards the former governor of Massachusetts.
The truth is that if Obama hadn't used Romney's plan but looked around and used another conservative governor's plan, many would be pissed with that governor. In fact, Obama would have created ObamaCare without or without using Romney or any other conservative health care reform plan. He could have attempted to pass a similar version of HillaryCare. I  contend that Obama simply claimed that he used RomneyCare as a template knowing how toxic his health care plan was to the American people just as a political tactic to hobble a potential 2012 candidate who could be his challenger in the general election. 
In the end, conservatives, independents and tea partiers should not be angry with Mitt Romney at all. When it comes to health care reform, Mitt has consistently stood for conservative principles. He hasn't abandoned or betrayed those ideas at all. Instead, conservatives, independents and tea partiers should be angry at those who claim to lead and speak for the TEA party because they are the ones who are abandoning, diluting and twisting everything that the TEA party stands for as they express their opposition to Mitt Romney. 
I'm not saying people shouldn't criticize or opposes Mitt Romney. People are free to do so. All I'm pointing out is the inconsistency in the so called "leaders" of the TEA Party which ultimately betrays the purpose, beliefs and goals of the TEA party movement. 

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Obama Did Not Use RomneyCare As A Template

T. S. Eliot once said that “immature poets imitate, mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different." This quote is equally applicable to politicians, especially in light of the national debate on the similarities and differences between Barak Obama and Mitt Romney's healthcare plan. 
Democrats are starting to realize that Obama doesn't know what he's doing as President of The United States. One of the clearest signs of Obama's inexperience is his creation his universal health care plan. The creation and passage of ObamaCare is his only project that he can truly call his own. It is his only major legislation that he's been able to pass in Congress. ObamaCare is what historians will use to judge Obama's competency as the 44th President of the United States.  The President claims that he used Mitt Romney's plan as a template in creating his nationalized health care plan. It is clear that Obama and his administration did not understand what they were doing when they attempted to replicate Romney's plan on a national level.
A relevant analogy is the difference between a licensed and unlicensed doctor who performs a surgery on a patient. There is a real difference in the skill, knowledge and experience between them. An inexperienced person who attempts to replicate or imitate a task or project done by an experienced person will always end up making major errors because they did not seek to take the time to obtain the necessary knowledge needed to successfully accomplish the task.
There is a clear difference between RomneyCare and ObamaCare. One health care program was created by a man who has plenty of experience in both the private and public sector where he worked as a businessman before becoming the governor of Massachusetts. The other health care program was created by a man who used to be a community organizer, law professor and a senator for only three years prior to becoming the 44th President of the United States.
If Obama really used RomneyCare as the template for ObamaCare, he didn't pick it apart to see how it works.  Inexperienced people are too much of a hurry to take the necessary steps, they just want the final product. What they never learn is that the final product will always be inferior to the thing they are copying because they never take the time to understand how it all works.
Let me explain the various ways Obama's inexperience shows that either failed to understand RomneyCare or didn't use it at all. 
Understanding The Origins
Romney, like a good poet and politician, stole a great idea and made it into something better. Mitt Romney got his idea for RomneyCare after hearing the Heritage Foundation propose the idea of individual mandates as a  conservative alternative to Hillary Clinton's attempt to nationalize the United State's health care program in the 1990s. Conservative think tanks and politicians opposed the idea of a universal health care. They wanted individuals to be responsible for their own health care, not the government. 
Had Obama studied RomneyCare, he would have known where Mitt stole the idea from. He would learned about why Mitt was fond of the idea enough to swipe it as his own when he was governor of Massachusetts and that Mitt opposed HillaryCare for the same reasons he would later oppose ObamaCare.
If Obama is going to steal or imitate an idea from Mitt, he should learn where Mitt got his ideas from. If he had done his homework and understood the origins of where Mitt got his idea, he would not have created a federal heath care program since the origins of RomneyCare doesn't come from Mitt but conservatives who opposed HillaryCare. 
Laying the Foundation
Before any project is to be done, you must lay the proper foundation. In fact, laying the foundation is more important than erecting the structure or program itself. Without the proper foundation, the project will never be successful because the surface that is upholding the rest of the structure is defective in some way or another.
An experienced leader knows that the laying down the proper foundations for a health care program requires that he first determine if the government is financially stable enough to undertake the project to see if he can do it. An inexperienced person will disregard the cost and simply go ahead with the project.   
Before Romney unveiled RomneyCare to Massachusetts, he first had to make sure that the state was financially stable enough launch his ambitious health care plan due to the fact that when Mitt entered into office in 2003, he was a left with a massive deficit of approximately $3 billion. It took 2 years for Mitt Romney to put Massachusetts back into financial health. By 2005, Mitt Romney had a budget surplus of $1 billion.  Having a budget surplus of $1 billion in 2005 allowed Mitt Romney to confidently to unveil his health care plan in 2006.When Mitt Romney introduced his health care plan on Beacon Hill, he made sure that his proposal wouldn't undermine all his hard work of whipping the state into financial shape. Thus, when his plan was presented, it was estimated to cost less than 1.5% of the state budget. By the time he left office in 2007, he left the state had a $ 2 billion surplus.
In contrast, President Obama did not work to make sure that America was in good financial shape before enacting ObamaCare. He simple went full speed ahead with his health care plan. ObamaCare was passed in Congress in March, the national debt was approximately $221 billion. Unemployment was 9.7%. Gallop reported that underemployment was at 20%. America's Triple A credit rating was under serious threat of being downgraded. Even more astonishing is the fact that after the passage of ObamaCare, it was estimated to cost the nation 2 trillion dollars.
Clearly, Obama did not use RomneyCare as a template. If he did, he would have followed Mitt Romney by getting the US economy in financial shape before implementing ObamaCare. Laying the foundation is crucial for the success of the program and for the state or country you lead.However, Obama has done it the other way around: ObamaCare first and now he's attempting to fix the U.S. economy. Like many poor imitators before him, Obama was much of a hurry to be bothered in understanding the details of RomneyCare. He was simply impatient and wanted get it through Congress.
Size Matters
If Obama really used RomneyCare has a template, he wouldn't have created a 2,000 page legislative and bureaucratic monstrosity seen as represented in the chart below: 
In contrast, RomneyCare is a slim and simple 70 pages long. A simple side by comparison demonstrates this fundamental difference between the two health care plans as outlined in this picture below: 
Had Obama really used Mitt Romney's health care plan as a template, he would have noted the small size of the former Governor's health care plan. He would also have paid attention to the simplicity of Mitt's plan. Its clear that either Obama ignored these facts or he didn't understand how important they are in the overall scheme of Mitt's plan.
Legislative Intent
Another strong piece of evidence that Obama didn't use RomneyCare at a template or made a poor attempt to imitate is the failure to understand the intent behind RomneyCare. Listen to Mitt Romney explains the intent of RomneyCare during his interview with Sean Hannity beginning at 4:30 time mark of the clip below:

As stated by Mitt in the interview, the intent of Romney's health care plan was to introduce free market principles into the state's health care system. Make it work more like a market. 
In contrast, the intent of ObamaCare was to grow the size of the goverment. Listen to Obama's intent behind his health care plan in his interview with John Stewart on the Daily Show.  If you don't want to watch the entire thing, go to approximately the 8 minute mark and listen. Watch the video below:
As the President stated himself, the "change" in the nation's health care program was to simply make it a framework that will allow for future growth of the federal government. His example of Social Security is used to drive this point home. Social Security was initially sold as support for widows and orphanages but later the "structure" of this program blossomed into a massive entitlement program. He points out that the same is true for every progressive piece of legislation, which includes ObamaCare, in which it started out small but it was never intended to be small. It was designed to allow them to make further "progress" which is another way of saying expanding the government. The implication that Obama is making is that ObamaCare will eventually grow into a single payer program over time.
This isn't the first time Obama has admitted that he wants a single-payer system:

If you couldn't clearly hear what he said in the above clip, here's the what Obama said when he was running for President:
“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”
Perhaps the biggest evidence that Obama didn't use RomneyCare as a template for ObamaCare is that he failed to understand how Mitt's health care plan actually works. In Massachusetts, everyone is covered through the private sector. They are required to purchase their own health care plan with their own money. Even in instances where an individual relies on the state for assistance in health care, insurance coverage is paid by the state to a private company. Furthermore, the only federal involvement in Mitt’s entire health care plan is that RomneyCare takes Medicaid funds and state money that was normally applied for emergency rooms and simply redirected that money to allow the poor to buy private health insurance so that tax payers  are not footing the bill for those people who are with out insurance. 
In contrast, ObamaCare provides coverage to the citizens via the Unites States Government. As you remember, it was Obama and the Democratic party who wanted the program to be a single payer program during the congressional debates prior to the passage of ObamaCare. Even though the single payer program didn't happen, Obama was able to get Congress to approve government provided universal health care that would unfold in stages over a number of years. That's how "progress" towards bigger government works. It works piece by piece, increment by increment and years by years. RomneyCare does none of that.
Perahaps the biggest lesson that Obama failed to learn from RomneyCare is that it was never designed to be replicated on a national level. Mitt Romney explains that Obama missed that point entirely
"If what was done at the state level, they applied at the federal level, they made a mistake. It was not designed for the nation." 
Like an inexperienced and unlicensed doctor who fails to get the adequate medical training, fails to prepare for surgery by skipping the process of scrubbing himself before surgery and finally botching the surgery, Obama failed to learn the lessons of RomneyCare from inception to implementation and miserably failed to  make the needed corrections in our nation's health care. Its clear he doesn't know what he's doing with regards with health care.
Rather than being a skilled politician who takes his political rival's ideas and makes it into something better or something different, he defaced it. There are too many essential and crucial details in Mitt's plan that Obama either ignored or overlooked. Just as an illegal doctor is in hurry to get the surgery on his innocent patient over with so that he won't be caught committing medical malpractice, Obama was too much in a hurry to pass his progressive piece of legislation without understanding any aspect of Romney's plan. 
ObamaCare is not even an immature imitation of RomneyCare. Obama doesn't follow Mitt's plan at all at any stage. Not in the getting the country in financial shape before proposing such a plan, not in legislative intent or in the actual implementation. Why? Lets not forget that ObamaCare isn't really Obama's idea. The legislation didn't come from the White House but Congress. Essentially, Obama let Congress create, draft and pass the bill. All he had to do was sign it. Which is essentially akin to allowing the illegal doctor's secretary peform the actual surgery. I don't think the Democratic Congress who wrote the bill looked at RomenyCare either.
Despite Obama's claim he used RomneyCare as a template for his health care plan,  I don't believe Obama (or the Democrats in Congress) because the they never followed any aspect of Mitt's plan.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Who Did George W. Bush Secretly Root For In The 2008 Elections?

Matt Latimer (front) standing with President George W. Bush.
George W. Bush's reluctance to involve himself in political affairs after his Presidency is. Bush stayed out of the limelight during the 2008 Presidential elections.  However, Matt Latimer, a former speech writer for the Bush administration, has written about his experiences in the White House. The memoir, "Speech-less: Tales of a White House Survivor", reveals Bush's private thoughts on many subjects including the 2008 elections:
Latimer said Bush liked Mitt Romney best and that he was "clearly not impressed with the McCain operation." Latimer said the former president wanted to appear with McCain at a campaign event in Phoenix, but after he was told the then-Republican nominee couldn't get enough people to show up, he called it a "cruel hoax."
"'He couldn't get 500 people? I could get that many people to turn out in Crawford.' He shook his head. 'This is a five-spiral crash, boys.'"
Bush presumed Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee, according to Latimer, and was extremely critical of Barack Obama. Latimer said Bush was "ticked off" after one of Obama's speeches and he said the future president wasn't "remotely qualified" for the challenges of the job.
"(Bush) came in one day to rehearse a speech, fuming. 'This is a dangerous world,' he said for no apparent reason, 'and this cat isn't remotely qualified to handle it. This guy has no clue, I promise you,'" Latimer said.
Latimer also made the controversial assertion that after Sarah Palin was tapped as McCain's running mate, Bush reportedly asked whether she was "the governor of Guam" and said that she was "not even remotely prepared." A former Bush and Palin aide has challenged the accuracy of the charge.
It appears that Bush was a Mitt Romney supporter and thought he was the most qualified candidate out of all the 2008 GOP contenders. 
The burning question I want to know now is this: is Bush still a Mitt Romney supporter for the 2012 elections?

Monday, November 15, 2010

Orrin Hatch: I'm Confident Mitt Romney Will Run In 2012

Orrin Hatch has stated on Friday night that he's confident that Mitt Romney will run again in 2012: 
"Sen. Orrin Hatch said Friday night he anticipates Mitt Romney will seek the Republican nomination for the White House in 2012, saying in an interview Romney "would be my preference."
Hatch, a Republican, appeared at a gathering in Wanship hosted by The Save The American Republic, a conservative organization that is active in Summit County and elsewhere.
Hatch said in an interview with The Park Record Romney has not informed him of his political plans in 2012. But Romney, who helmed the 2002 Winter Olympics and owned a mansion in Park City until recently, has the background in economics that a president should possess, Hatch said.
"I'm quite sure he's going to run," the senator said.
Hatch mentioned his support of Romney while addressing the crowd of approximately 100 people at the Wanship Fire Station, but it was a brief interlude during remarks that touched on a range of issues over several hours."

Monday, November 8, 2010

2012 Presidential Election: Who Is Running And Who Is Not

Although the 2012 election hasn't started yet, the Presidential election season begins the day after November 2nd. Even though its too early to know, its fun to see who the potential 2012 candidates might be. 
George W. Bush has stated that his brother, Jeb, will not be running for President in 2012 even though he would like his brother to bid for the White House. Although Chris Christie is popular with many conservatives, he has stated that there is a "zero chance" he will run for President in 2012. But he might throw his hat in the ring in 2016. Jim DeMint has declared he's not running for President in the upcoming election either.  
While we've listed those who aren't running, there are some people who are considering a run. Donald Trump says he's thinking about it although I'm not sure how serious this idea is. The idea of having a businessman run for President hasn't never been successful. Just look at Steve Forbes and Ross Perot. Interestingly enough, the Boston Herald thinks Scott Brown should run. Former New York governor George Pataki is thinking about running in the next election. All other potential candidates such as Mitt Romney, Mike Pence,  Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and others have not stated one way or the other if they are running.
Hillary Clinton has stated that she will not run in 2012 or 2016. I take that to mean that the Clintons will never seek the Presidency unless Chelsea Clinton decides to run far, far into the future. However, some are looking to Howard Dean as a potential challenger to Obama but his office shut that rumor down very quickly. Others have floated the idea of having Russ Feingold challenge Obama in the next election but he gave a Sherman-like statement that he's not running either
The interesting thing is that some Democrats are looking for someone else other than Obama to run despite the fact that Obama has stated he wants to run. The Democrats should seriously entertain the idea of Obama being a one term President and have a Democrat run against him since his poll numbers against potential Republican challengers don't look so great.
I've created a simple list of the potential 2012 contenders As you can see, the Republican side is quite crowded with potential contenders. Do you see anyone that I should add to the list? 
UPDATE (11/8/10): I received an e-mail from someone asking me if Evan Beyh  was considering running in 2012. The answer is no, he's not running.  
Christ Christie
Jeb Bush
Jim DeMint
Mitt Romney
Sarah Palin
Ron Paul
Mike Huckabee
Tim Pawlenty
Haley Barbour
Paul Ryan
Mike Pence
Rick Santorum
Newt Gingrich
Rick Perry
John Thune
Mitch Daniels
Bobby Jindal
George Pataki
Donald Trump

Michelle Bachman

Gary Johnson 

Scott Brown

Fred Karger

Herman Cain (dropped out of the race) 
Hillary Clinton
Evan Beyh 
Howard Dean
Russ Feingold
Barak Obama

Sunday, November 7, 2010

11 Interesting Facts About The 2010 Midterm Elections

The Republican Party made the 2010 midterms elections one of the most memorable elections in history.  I'd like to share 11 interesting facts about the 2010 elections with you: 
1. The Republican tidal wave that washed over the entire United States was huge. The British newspaper, the Daily Telegraph, reports how big that wave was: 
"The Republicans increased their seats in the House of Representatives by the biggest margin since 1948, with a significantly bigger win than 1994, gaining 61 seats. They surely would have taken the Senate as well, had all of the seats been up for re-election, instead of just 37. At the gubernatorial level the GOP now controls 29 governorships compared to just 19 for the Democrats. Republicans also picked up 680 seats in state legislatures, the highest figure in the modern era according to figures provided by the National Conference of State Legislatures." 
The Republican wave in the House isn't over as some races have yet to be decided
2. The 2010 election has severely diluted the Democrat's power in Congress. The Washington Times explains how much power the Democrats have loss in Washington D.C.: 
"Republicans defeat three major committee chairmen and at least seven lawmakers who claimed 20 years' seniority or more in Congress.Democrats have already shed 376 years of congressional experience, and that could go as high as 430 years if five other Democrats lose races in which returns show they are trailing."
3. The loss of power for the Democrats didn't just occur in Washington D.C but in state legislatures across the country. Here's the facts from ABC News:
"Republicans haven't controlled as many state legislatures since 1928."
"Republicans took control of at least 19 Democratic-controlled state legislatures Tuesday and gained more than 650 seats, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The last time Republicans saw such victories was in 1994, when they captured control of 20 state legislatures." 
4. The Republicans also made history in several state legislatures as detailed from the same article linked above:
"In Minnesota, Republicans won the Senate for the first time ever, while in Alabama, they took control for the first time since reconstruction." 
5. This will be the first time that a father and son will serve in Congress at the same time. Rand Paul, the newly elected senator of Kentucky is the son of Ron Paul, who a congressman from Texas.
6. Republicans not only made history in national and state legislatures but in several governor's races. For example, Nikki Haley whose parents immigrated from Punjab, India has became only the second Indian-American to be a Governor of a US State after Bobby Jindal of Louisiana; and also the first Indian-origin woman governor.
7.  Three states elected their first female governors: Mary Fallin in Oklahoma, Susana Martinez in New Mexico and Nikki Haley in South Carolina. Susana Martinez is the first Hispanic female governor.
8. Speaking of women, House Republicans won the most female voters in this election with women splitting their votes 49-49 for Democratic vs Republican House candidates which is the record for House Republicans since 1982. 
9. Republicans also made history with gay voters. In 2008, only 19% of gay voters supported Republican candidates in 2008. In 2010, it jumped up to 31% of self-identified gay voters supported Republican candidates for the U.S. House.  
10. Evangelicals turned out in big numbers for this election. According to one survey, the largest single constituency in the electorate in the 2010 midterm elections were self-identified evangelicals, who compromised 29 percent of the vote and cast an astonishing 78 percent of their ballots for Republican candidates.
11. The 2010 midterms elections was the most expensive election campaign in modern history. Take a look at the numbers:  
  • Meg Whitman ran the most expensive campaign in the country in which she spent more than $160 million of her own money only to lose to Jerry Brown.
  • GOP Rep. Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota both spent and raised the most cash of any House candidate in the country. It is projected that she raised $11 million and spent more than $8 million.
  • The total amount of money spent during the 2010 election is projected to be $4 billion.  
Update (11.8.10): 12. The Senior voters turned out in droves for the Republican party:
"Seniors voted last week by an almost 60-40 split for Republican House candidates, after splitting evenly between Democrats and Republicans in the 2006 midterms."

    Wednesday, November 3, 2010

    Election 2010: The Joy and the Heartache (Especially if you're on the coast)

    Because the messages and the point of the election will and has been discussed and dissected by minds far greater then mine, here are a few points I'd like to make

    1) If you live on the coasts (Pacific, Northeast, State of New York) it really does suck to be a republican. Connecticut sent a liar and a shameful individual to the Senate in place of a respectable business woman. New York went hardcore liberal (though some of the candidates turned out to have been a bad choice, more on that later), Delaware sent a Marxist over a (flawed) citizen politician, Massachusettes re-sent the man responsible for the housing crisis (Bwaney Fwank) back to Washington while also sending their horrible governor back. No idea what will happen in Washington State with Dino Rossi. It does beg the question what does it take to crack the coast. Don't get me wrong I'm thrilled that most of the center of the country is dark red, but what does it take to make progress in democrat strongholds?

    1a) Nowhere is this more evident then in California. Sending Governor Moonbeam back to Sacramento and Boxer back to Washington is disgraceful, I do not know how these individuals were victorious over the two most successful female CEOs in history. No new house seats, limited gains in the assembly and senate, and worst of all in this hand, no pot. How am I supposed to deal with this? You look at a map of California and with the exception of this stretch of land up the coast from Los Angeles to the Oregon border, its basically all red. It might be time to form two separate states, if not more. i'm game breaking off San Diego, Imperial, Orange, Riverside and San bernadino counties to form its own state. Who's with me? I just worry things will not get any better for the Golden State; we are drowning in debt and obligations only to elect people who are beholden to, and are among, those who got us into this damn mess. We might become the first federal state.

    2) Outside the coasts and a few races (namely Nevada, damn you harry reid!) The map was very heavily painted red. Republicans swept Florida, Missouri and other states taking the house and closing the gap in the senate. The party also won almost a dozen governor's races stretching throughout the middle of the country and control numerous state legislatures. The Republicans did well and the message has been the right one; that the party is on probation until it can prove it learnt its lesson from 2001-2006. I like alot of the candidates that have won in the house especially Allen West, Daniel Webster & Jon Runyan. I'm hoping this group doesn't make the mistakes of the past

    3) What does this election mean for the tea party? It's 50/50. They found some absolute gems in this election cycle but also found weaker candidates. I can't deny that where Marco Rubio and Rand Paul and Allen West and Pat Toomey are outstanding men and look to be future stars in the GOP. But Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell and others were definitely weak candidates primarily because they were citizen politicians who made poor decisions early on. There has to be a better selection process and a better hunt for candidates; maybe some of that was because of how late the Tea Party got involved in the process but there has to be more quality control on the candidates to find better people who can control what's going on from the get go. Anyone think marco rubio would have beaten harry reid?

    4) The real thing I'm scratching my little wooden head on is how Americans state they don't want packaged and prepared politicians but citizens running, and then when actual citizens run, they run away. Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, Linda McMahon (oh gee look, all female candidates, all ignored by the feminists for being anti-women or not real women, I think the rank and file feminists would be wise to look at what their organizations are actually doing) were all outstanding individuals with personal success but were ignored in favor of individuals who have been in the system and sucking off the government teat their entire career. I will never get this.

    5) Most damning of all is the GOP Establishment. Their failure to either unite behind candidates (Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell) or the selection of pathetic candidates (Colorado Governor, Mike Castle, Charlie Crist) and the failure to truly create an agenda for the candidates to run on was pathetic. If anything this election shows that the republicans could win heavy even despite the failures of the republicans. They can't do this again in 2012, they must establish an identity and credentials and not just allow Obama to collapse. People will not go with the devil they don't know over the devil they do. The GOP establishment in both house/senate leadership as well as head of the party for fundraising needs to be changed, immediately.

    6) Prsonally speaking I wish I could be happy with what happened but I just feel like this was opportunity wasted. With all the fire and the passion of the tea party and the movement against Obama, there was little to show for it in areas that really aren't under republican control. We have made great gains but I wish more had been done.

    Meg Whitman Not Stepping Down Due To The California Secretary of State's Computers Crashing

    Although many news networks have declared that Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina lost the election, they're not conceding. I've picked up on a rumor that former Governor Pete Wilson stated at the Whitman campaign event in Los Angeles that the California Secretary Of State’s computer reportedly crashed and as a result, the media are getting all their numbers from each other. Therefore, the two female Republican candidates are not stepping down.
    I've tried to contact my sources in the Whitman campaign and haven't recieved any word back. However, it does appear that the computers at the California Secretary's Office did crash:
    The normal tension of election night was ratcheted up Tuesday when the Secretary of State’s website showing election returns was overloaded with traffic, so that many people were having trouble calling up election results even after 10 p.m.
    The state agency, which has notoriously had problems with its computers, put up an alternative posting of all election results while it tried to work out the problems, according to spokeswoman Nicole Winger.
    The state was using a "cloud computing" system in which at least 50 servers outside the Secretary of State’s office were being used to manage the heavy traffic.
    "The traffic to the website has been exponentially higher than what was even projected" by the state’s IT experts, she said. "The traffic basically blew up the cloud." She said web traffic at the Secretary of State’s site was higher than experienced during the last presidential election.
    Former Rep. Gov. Pete Wilson cited the "crash" of the Secretary of State’s computer site as one reason results were slow in coming in the governor’s race.
    Having the computers crash in a very close race is a big deal. It makes sense for these women not to concede. While the media can declare the news of who won the race, it is the Secretary of State who certifies the actual winner of the race. Obviously, election lawyers for Meg and Carly will be busy now. 
    Jerry Brown has stated that the results of the election is "good enough for government work." We'll have to see how good the government computers are. But it wouldn't surprise me if the California government has crappy computers. That's the government for you. Which is good enough for Jerry Brown, obviously. 
    I will keep you posted on any developments if I can.