President
Obama is reelected. The Senate is still in Democratic hands with a greater
majority than.
The
“Mourning” After has set in for a number of voters, constituencies, and
interest groups.
Is there a
time for rejoicing, too? Is there still a discernible purpose under heaven
following the backlash to “Mitt-mentum”? Certainly, for the fish are still
swimming, the birds are still singing. The peace of your house still does not
depend on the discord in the statehouse of the White House. Work with joy and
enjoy the fruits of your labor, everyone. The world is not coming to an end.
There is still a silver lining for every cloud.
The fact
that the Republicans held onto the House is the real barometer of the national
pulse, just as the Framers intended. The voters in this country still want to
stop the spending. They do not want to deal with tax increases. They want a
check on Gargantuan government, which wants to give us more of our money in its
own way. In California, redistricting reform and open primaries did put away
two liberal incumbents: Howard Berman, who lost in a new district which
included only one-fourth of his former district; and Pete Stark, an impolitic
politician whose raving attacks included slights against Deborah Saunders of
the San Francisco Chronicle.
As for the
Senate, theoutcomes tell a different tale. One bipartisan senator, Scott Brown
of Massachusetts, lost by five points, even though the Wrentham native brought
careful compromise to the chamber. His ascendancy to the People’s Seat in 2010
was an angry “Bay State” backlash to President Obama’s distracted agenda of
stimulus packages and health care instead of fiscal reform and job growth. Two years
later the Massachusetts voters are sending to Washington a senator who
positively represents their views of Big Government and lax attention to social
issues.
Olympia
Snowe of Maine got tired of Washington’s partisan gridlock, so she claimed. In
reality, following the ascendancy of a Tea Party Republican to the Governor’s
Mansion in Augusta, Snowe was polling better with Democrats than Republicans.
Rather than switch parties and get baited by voters, she chose to step down.
The
disconcerting results in Indiana and Missouri may finally force the Grand Old
Party to reassess their stance on social issues. Two qualified candidates made
unqualified statements about abortion and the life of the mother. These issues
must be decided at the most local level possible. A grand majority of voters in
this country oppose partial birth abortion and abortion on demand as a form of
birth control. Still, the Republican Party platform is “pro-life at conception
with no exceptions.” We must also recognize that life is tragic and must admit
for tragic consequences.
Obama is reelected. The Senate is still in Democratic hands with a greater
majority than.
The
“Mourning” After has set in for a number of voters, constituencies, and
interest groups.
Is there a
time for rejoicing, too? Is there still a discernible purpose under heaven
following the backlash to “Mitt-mentum”? Certainly, for the fish are still
swimming, the birds are still singing. The peace of your house still does not
depend on the discord in the statehouse of the White House. Work with joy and
enjoy the fruits of your labor, everyone. The world is not coming to an end.
There is still a silver lining for every cloud.
The fact
that the Republicans held onto the House is the real barometer of the national
pulse, just as the Framers intended. The voters in this country still want to
stop the spending. They do not want to deal with tax increases. They want a
check on Gargantuan government, which wants to give us more of our money in its
own way. In California, redistricting reform and open primaries did put away
two liberal incumbents: Howard Berman, who lost in a new district which
included only one-fourth of his former district; and Pete Stark, an impolitic
politician whose raving attacks included slights against Deborah Saunders of
the San Francisco Chronicle.
As for the
Senate, theoutcomes tell a different tale. One bipartisan senator, Scott Brown
of Massachusetts, lost by five points, even though the Wrentham native brought
careful compromise to the chamber. His ascendancy to the People’s Seat in 2010
was an angry “Bay State” backlash to President Obama’s distracted agenda of
stimulus packages and health care instead of fiscal reform and job growth. Two years
later the Massachusetts voters are sending to Washington a senator who
positively represents their views of Big Government and lax attention to social
issues.
Olympia
Snowe of Maine got tired of Washington’s partisan gridlock, so she claimed. In
reality, following the ascendancy of a Tea Party Republican to the Governor’s
Mansion in Augusta, Snowe was polling better with Democrats than Republicans.
Rather than switch parties and get baited by voters, she chose to step down.
The
disconcerting results in Indiana and Missouri may finally force the Grand Old
Party to reassess their stance on social issues. Two qualified candidates made
unqualified statements about abortion and the life of the mother. These issues
must be decided at the most local level possible. A grand majority of voters in
this country oppose partial birth abortion and abortion on demand as a form of
birth control. Still, the Republican Party platform is “pro-life at conception
with no exceptions.” We must also recognize that life is tragic and must admit
for tragic consequences.
Aside from
their unfortunate remarks, those capable men better represented their states’
views than their Democratic challengers. The voters in these states were moved
by the moment-media of instantaneous opinions and last-minute outrage.
Senators, who represent an entire state for six years to cast votes on
momentous national issues, should not be so casually chosen. Once again: anyone
for repealing of the Seventeenth Amendment?
Based on the
conserved conservative House Majority, the conservative brand still speaks to a
near majority of voters. Unfortunately, the Republican Party became rigid on
social issues instead of towing the line on fiscal matters. One cannot fault
voters in California for not buying into the social moderation of Congressional
candidates like Gary DeLong of Long Beach or Independent Bill Bloomfield of
Manhattan Beach, if one takes into account that the Democratic majority in
those districts are Democrats for a reason. Limited Government as a mantra
simply does not sell well unless the candidates are willing to offer a more
secure source of dependence. We all need to lean on something or Someone; if
not Big Government, then what? Limited Government advocates must answer this
question, not just cut spending. Even Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, the most
presidential of non-contenders, has evinced respect for people who are on
welfare, outlining that they need real training (and a deadline) so that they
have something better than the state to stand on.
A further
point should lay to rest the divided opinion on Citizens United. No
politician, no matter what his war chest, can buy an election. Despite billionaire
Bill Bloomfield’s $7 million and the $6 billion of general election politicking,
the national partisan divide is closer and sharper. Critics and supporters of
the 2010 Supreme Court decision can chuckle (or cry) that billions of dollars
had a negligible effect on our politics. Ideas do matter, answers remain
essential, and character and consistency count more than cash.
Though two
years away, 2014 may bring the massive Republican repudiation to the Senate
(and the House) so lacking in 2012. A sharper, simpler message with respectful
hope for those down and out as well as on the up and up can turn a nation
adrift back on course. If Canada, Puerto Rico, and Wisconsin could implement
budget reform without going broke, so can this country. "Mourning"
can become "morning" once again.