Is Obama a boon for Republicans?

posted at 12:00 pm on December 19, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama has raided the heavily-Democratic Senate and governors for a record number of his appointments, and USA Today sees an opening for Republicans.  In 2010, the appointed replacements for these positions will have to stand for special elections in a midterm that already holds some promise for Republicans.  But can they make up the ground lost over the last two elections with voters?

Obama’s incoming administration would open vacancies in seven states, more than each of the past two presidents. His picks could put a Republican in the Arizona governor’s seat and create other competitive races in the elections in 2010, including in his home state of Illinois. …

Obama has rapidly named his Cabinet and many top agency positions this month before the inauguration Jan. 20. Five of his picks are governors or members of Congress — all Democrats — who have time left in their terms.

If confirmed, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton will serve as secretary of State, and Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado will lead the Department of Interior. In addition to Napolitano, Obama tapped Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico to lead the Commerce Department. The Associated Press reported Thursday that Obama will announce Rep. Hilda Solis, D-Calif., to head the Department of Labor.

Colorado voters elected Salazar to the Senate in 2004, and they chose Democrat Mark Udall to fill the state’s other Senate seat this year. Colorado’s Democratic governor, Bill Ritter, will name a replacement to serve out Salazar’s term through 2010.

Janet Napolitano’s appointment puts Republican Secretary of State Jan Brewer in Napolitano’s spot automatically.  The state normally elects Republicans anyway, and Brewer would have two years to cement her status as incumbent and take advantage of that position.  John McCain will run for his Senate seat in the same year and could help keep Brewer in office as governor, forcing the Democrats to retreat on a key interior West state.

Chris Cillizza has bad news for incumbent appointees in the Senate, though:

A look back at Senate appointments made over the past 50 years shows a decidedly mixed electoral record. Of the 51 Senators who sought a full term in their own right, just 23 (45 percent) won their races. (Twenty one appointed Senators did not seek election to their appointed post.)

While the last three appointed senators — Sens. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), John Barrasso (R-Wy.) and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) — were elected in the next cycle, there also have been high profile losses by appointed senators in recent years including the defeats of Sens. Bob Krueger (D-Texas), Sheila Frahm (R-Kan.), and Jean Carnahan (D-Mo.).

It’s always helpful to keep that history in mind when considering the races to come in New York, Delaware and Colorado (and possibly Illinois) where appointed senators will be faced with a decision on whether to seek election or step aside.

What’s clear is that no matter what they decide (Democratic Sen. Ted Kaufman in Delaware has already said he will not seek a full term), none of the appointed senators — yes, even you Caroline Kennedy — can be assured of an easy election in 2010.

Appointed incumbents may face the same buzzsaw in 2010 as the rest of the Democrats, without having the advantage of actually winning the office through election once.  If the post-Election Day contests for Congress give any indication, the Democrats will struggle with Barack Obama off the ticket.  Combine that with unpopular bailouts continuing in an Obama administration and what looks like a long economic slump, and you have the recipe for a housecleaning in the midterms.

In order for that to take place, however, Republicans have to offer real and positive alternatives to the Obama agenda.  They need to rebuild their credibility as a small-government party and start focusing on uniting the GOP around core values rather than fight each other on every possible front.  First and foremost, we have to prepare an economic agenda that promotes investment and growth as solutions that will benefit all Americans and stop the massive government interventions in markets that have brought us to this pass.

If Republicans can manage that, they may have a very good 2010 and force Obama even further towards the center.  If not, there won’t be much difference between electing Republicans or Democrats anyway, and the entire question will be moot.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

John McCain will run for his Senate seat in the same year and could help keep Brewer in office as governor, forcing the Democrats to retreat on a key interior West state.

How will a democrat like McCain help the Republican Brewer?

joey24007 on December 19, 2008 at 12:05 PM

we need a secret handshake to keep the Mobys from having us eat our tail.

sven10077 on December 19, 2008 at 12:06 PM

er, no, he isn’t.

is he providing an opportunity for them in ’10? sure, but no more than he did in ’08 when they failed to seize upon it!!

/it’s the seizing part that the gop is lacking in today, the whole “execution” thing …

Buckaroo on December 19, 2008 at 12:13 PM

Is Obama a boon for Republicans?

No, because most of us Republicans have shown themselves to be stupid. Most Republicans will buy into the theory that they need to vote toward the left in order to win. How do you think we were blessed with McCain?

How many times did we see comments on this blog that we needed to vote for “the guy who could beat Obama” instead of the guy “who stood for conservative fundamentals?

How did that work out for you all?

Idiots. And you all know who you are, and you won’t be able to resist outing yourself by attacking this comment.

Gregor on December 19, 2008 at 12:19 PM

“ourselves.” That was a subconscious typo, being that I didn’t include myself in that group..

Gregor on December 19, 2008 at 12:20 PM

is he providing an opportunity for them in ‘10? sure, but no more than he did in ‘08 when they failed to seize upon it!!

/it’s the seizing part that the gop is lacking in today, the whole “execution” thing …

Buckaroo on December 19, 2008 at 12:13 PM

You’re right on that, but keep in mind that in ’08 we were hamstrung by McAmnesty. He won’t be on the ticket in ’08, in fact he’ll be on the other side of it if the last few weeks are any indication.

Rogue on December 19, 2008 at 12:21 PM

I see the new cabinet like a clown car headed for a cliff. Whether the GOP takes advantage of it remains to be seen.

Vashta.Nerada on December 19, 2008 at 12:21 PM

“Rogue on December 19, 2008 at 12:21 PM”

which is why the gop chair is so important. this individual will have ~19 months to field some 500 candidates at the state and federal levels — and setting up the RIGHT CANDIDATES could well make all the difference re: the magnitude of gop gains that year …

/GO MIKE, GO KEN, let’s do this thing!

Buckaroo on December 19, 2008 at 12:24 PM

I’m not sure about this being a boon to anyone, to be honest. After this last election nationally and here in MN. My trust of any sense of a conservative candidate appearing is slim. The Republican leadership needs to be purged…. and viciously.

MNDavenotPC on December 19, 2008 at 12:25 PM

To illustrate the point about appointed incumbents: In the early 1990s, Pete Wilson became governor of California and appointed his successor to the Senate, John Seymour. As I recall, Alan Cranston didn’t run for re-election. So in 1992, there were TWO Senate seats up in California.

The interesting thing was that, faced with a choice between an open election in one seat and a race against the appointed incumbent Seymour, Dianne Feinstein chose to run against Seymour.

As I quipped at the time, in the free market of electoral politics, the value of Seymour is less than the value of nothing.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on December 19, 2008 at 12:26 PM

You’re right on that, but keep in mind that in ‘08 we were hamstrung by McAmnesty.

Rogue on December 19, 2008 at 12:21 PM

You say that as if Republicans had no choice in the matter. McCain didn’t nominate himself. Republicans voted for him.

He won’t be on the ticket in ‘08, in fact he’ll be on the other side of it if the last few weeks are any indication.

No, but read the comments in conservative blogs enough and you’ll see that the same problem exists today. You’ll see conservatives insisting that RINOS such as Romney and Huckabee are the way to go in 2012. We haven’t learned, as a group.

Gregor on December 19, 2008 at 12:27 PM

Puh-leeze….you think the Dems don’t have all this covered?

Specter’s running around cracking Polish jokes, for God’s sake.

jay12 on December 19, 2008 at 12:30 PM

If Obama isn’t, Franken sure will be.

forest on December 19, 2008 at 12:32 PM

These are early days yet. I will sit back, watch, wait and see. What will the new RNC leadership do? What will BO do? Will Reid and Pelosi finally succeed in pi**ing off the rest of the country? Will the poor economy get blamed on the Rs or the Ds or both? What will Blago say? Will we be at War with Russia?…or Argentina? Who in our party will step up and run for these positions? Will they stand for core Republican values? I shall just wait and see.

HawaiiLwyr on December 19, 2008 at 12:39 PM

John McCain will run for his Senate seat in the same year and could help keep Brewer in office as governor, forcing the Democrats to retreat on a key interior West state.

How exactly does McCain winning his seat help Republicans again?

angryed on December 19, 2008 at 12:41 PM

…and Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado will lead the Department of Interior.

This is the guy who’s against off-shore drilling even with $10 gas prices.

This may be useful to Republicans when the prices inevitably go up again, as we continue to import most of our oil.

forest on December 19, 2008 at 12:41 PM

The secret to success for the GOP is:

– stop being so defensive (both parties have crooks and nuts)
– stand up for what you believe in
– fight hard
– dont listen to liberals, rinos, losing candidates, etc. for advice

faraway on December 19, 2008 at 12:43 PM

Stop picking on Obama. He’s perhaps the best Kenyan born president-elect America has ever had. And he’s not the least bit untruthful or arrogant. Trust him with your hole mind.

Basilsbest on December 19, 2008 at 12:44 PM

“angryed on December 19, 2008 at 12:41 PM”

with janet now gone [hooray!] the AZ gop has a golden opportunity — retain the gov. seat AND ditch John for Hayworth …

/will they screw it up? sadly, it’s a coin toss …

Buckaroo on December 19, 2008 at 12:44 PM

“Trust him with your hole mind.”

dude, if that was a freudian slip it was AWESOME!
:-)

Buckaroo on December 19, 2008 at 12:45 PM

Who cares about the Republicans? We need to get the good ones to splinter off and become a “NO” party. No the Democrat insantiy. No to Republican insanity.

VolMagic on December 19, 2008 at 12:49 PM

Gregor on December 19, 2008 at 12:27 PM

I’ve always maintained the problem is in the GOP leadership. However, you are more correct. Voters put them in place. It is a grass roots problem and I don’t see it improving unless the economy heals, which won’t happen with our present bailout mess. I fear we are past the point of no return.

a capella on December 19, 2008 at 12:52 PM

I see the new cabinet like a clown car headed for a cliff. Whether the GOP takes advantage of it remains to be seen.
Vashta.Nerada on December 19, 2008 at 12:21 PM

Two true.

As Ann Coulter recently said: If the Republican Party “leadership” can’t keep Stewart Smalley from out-and-out stealing an election then why does the RNC even exist?

logis on December 19, 2008 at 12:54 PM

Gawd. In the Blogosphere’s Special Olympics, Hewitt’s got some serious competition in the “blind optimism” event.

Coming soon to a Morrisey headline near you:

“Earthquake in Tanzania: Opportunity for House Gains?”
“Ice Storm in New York: Will Dems step aside?”
“Yen Falls 0.2% on Econ data: Obama to Resign?”

Splashman on December 19, 2008 at 12:56 PM

Mccain and grahamnesty are going to see who can bend over the farthest and fastest!!

the republicans are done, finished, kaput.

right4life on December 19, 2008 at 12:58 PM

Here’s a good start – Congress approval at 9%

Someone should be yelling this at the top of their lungs every day for the next 2 years.

faraway on December 19, 2008 at 1:02 PM

Anyone who says a Republican could win the seat held by Hilda Rodham Solis is a candidate for the funny farm.

Voter reg in her district (CA-32 which is mainly East LA) is 51% Dem, 22% Rep.

Solis is to East LA what Maxine Waters is to South Central, though in fairness to Ms. Solis, she is nowhere near as poisonously mean, ignorant and bigoted as Waters.

Mike D. on December 19, 2008 at 1:03 PM

You say that as if Republicans had no choice in the matter. McCain didn’t nominate himself. Republicans voted for him.

McAmnesty didn’t win majorities of Republicans in the Primary until after the Indy and Dem open primary votes made him a fait accompli.

No, but read the comments in conservative blogs enough and you’ll see that the same problem exists today. You’ll see conservatives insisting that RINOS such as Romney and Huckabee are the way to go in 2012. We haven’t learned, as a group.

With Huck I agree, but Romney isn’t that bad in my mind, though I want Palin as our ’12 candidate. For ’10, we just have to get good candidates.

Rogue on December 19, 2008 at 1:04 PM

In order for that to take place, however, Republicans have to offer real and positive alternatives to the Obama agenda.

How about walking the walk of a conservative and not just talking it. ESPECIALLY, when elected.

Branch Rickey on December 19, 2008 at 1:05 PM

His picks could put a Republican in the Arizona governor’s seat

After (nearly) two terms of dear Janet, the likelihood of a Republican being elected AZ’s next governor was already a foregone conclusion.

The economy will still be in the dumper in 2010, and Obama will be radioactive. I’m looking forward to lots of Republican victories, at all levels of government, as a result.

AZCoyote on December 19, 2008 at 1:07 PM

If Caroline Kennedy gets the senate nod in New York, there will be a vacant “mom” seat Republicans could latch onto.

Stepping stones to success like that one come along but once in a lifetime. Or everyday, I forget which.

fogw on December 19, 2008 at 1:09 PM

I’m not sure about this being a boon to anyone, to be honest. After this last election nationally and here in MN. My trust of any sense of a conservative candidate appearing is slim. The Republican leadership needs to be purged…. and viciously.

MNDavenotPC on December 19, 2008 at 12:25 PM

MNDave – dude; I cannot believe the whole Franken thing. My heart goes out to those of you have brave the MN cold to have a Hollyweird “Johnny Come Lately” be your senator. Makes me feel a little bit better about some of Georgia’s contributions {“Cooter,” “Carter” & “Cynthia [McKinney]} to higher office. Sen. Franken – that bites for ya’ll….

Branch Rickey on December 19, 2008 at 1:11 PM

one silver lining is O is appointing RMSP members(aka Soros moderate Repubs) to his administration.

Now if he can only find a spot for aRnold and McCain in his regime.

normsrevenge on December 19, 2008 at 1:12 PM

Here’s a good start – Congress approval at 9%

Someone should be yelling this at the top of their lungs every day for the next 2 years.

faraway on December 19, 2008 at 1:02 PM

That would be an important statistic if most people knew that the Dems controlled Congress. The MSM is complicit in this in that if they do report these numbers they don’t mention that Congress is under Dem control.

thomasaur on December 19, 2008 at 1:12 PM

McAmnesty didn’t win majorities of Republicans in the Primary until after the Indy and Dem open primary votes made him a fait accompli.

Rogue on December 19, 2008 at 1:04 PM

Juan Shamnesty McCain should not have received a single Republican vote. Not one! The fact that he received ANY votes at all from those claiming to be conservatives is an embarrassment.

And I’m not getting into the whole Romney argument again, but the only way to defend Romney’s actual actions is to suggest that he only acted like a liberal because Massachusetts is liberal. To me, that’s basically proof that the man will sell his morals for votes. This is how we lose.

Gregor on December 19, 2008 at 1:14 PM

With economy in shambles, Congress gets a raise
By Jordy Yager
Posted: 12/17/08 05:41 PM [ET]

A crumbling economy, more than 2 million constituents who have lost their jobs this year, and congressional demands of CEOs to work for free did not convince lawmakers to freeze their own pay.

Instead, they will get a $4,700 pay increase, amounting to an additional $2.5 million that taxpayers will spend on congressional salaries, and watchdog groups are not happy about it.

“As lawmakers make a big show of forcing auto executives to accept just $1 a year in salary, they are quietly raiding the vault for their own personal gain,” said Daniel O’Connell, chairman of The Senior Citizens League (TSCL), a non-partisan group. “This money would be much better spent helping the millions of seniors who are living below the poverty line and struggling to keep their heat on this winter.”

However, at 2.8 percent, the automatic raise that lawmakers receive is only half as large as the 2009 cost of living adjustment of Social Security recipients.

Still, Steve Ellis, vice president of the budget watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense, said Congress should have taken the rare step of freezing its pay, as lawmakers did in 2000.

“Look at the way the economy is and how most people aren’t counting on a holiday bonus or a pay raise — they’re just happy to have gainful employment,” said Ellis. “But you have the lawmakers who are set up and ready to get their next installment of a pay raise and go happily along their way.”

Member raises are often characterized as examples of wasteful spending, especially when many constituents and businesses in members’ districts are in financial despair.

Rep. Harry Mitchell, a first-term Democrat from Arizona, sponsored legislation earlier this year that would have prevented the automatic pay adjustments from kicking in for members next year. But the bill, which attracted 34 cosponsors, failed to make it out of committee.

“They don’t even go through the front door. They have it set up so that it’s wired so that you actually have to undo the pay raise rather than vote for a pay raise,” Ellis said.

Freezing congressional salaries is hardly a new idea on Capitol Hill.

Lawmakers have floated similar proposals in every year dating back to 1995, and long before that. Though the concept of forgoing a raise has attracted some support from more senior members, it is most popular with freshman lawmakers, who are often most vulnerable.

In 2006, after the Republican-led Senate rejected an increase to the minimum wage, Democrats, who had just come to power in the House with a slew of freshmen, vowed to block their own pay raise until the wage increase was passed. The minimum wage was eventually increased and lawmakers received their automatic pay hike.

In the beginning days of 1789, Congress was paid only $6 a day, which would be about $75 daily by modern standards. But by 1965 members were receiving $30,000 a year, which is the modern equivalent of about $195,000.

Currently the average lawmaker makes $169,300 a year, with leadership making slightly more. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) makes $217,400, while the minority and majority leaders in the House and Senate make $188,100.

Ellis said that while freezing the pay increase would be a step in the right direction, it would be better to have it set up so that members would have to take action, and vote, for a pay raise and deal with the consequences, rather than get one automatically.

“It is probably never going to be politically popular to raise Congress’s salary,” he said. “I don’t think you’re going to find taxpayers saying, ‘Yeah I think I should pay my congressman more’.”

Keemo on December 19, 2008 at 1:18 PM

Here’s a good start – Congress approval at 9%

Someone should be yelling this at the top of their lungs every day for the next 2 years.

faraway on December 19, 2008 at 1:02 PM

Oh, come on. Stop with the logic and strategy to win back the country. This the RNC of which we speak.

Branch Rickey on December 19, 2008 at 1:22 PM

I’ve always maintained the problem is in the GOP leadership. However, you are more correct. Voters put them in place. It is a grass roots problem and I don’t see it improving unless the economy heals, which won’t happen with our present bailout mess. I fear we are past the point of no return.

a capella on December 19, 2008 at 12:52 PM

The group of people that make up both the Democrat and Republican political leadership come from a group decidely left of center, so it is no shock that the Republican leadership continues to tack to the center, and the Democrats to way left field.

Essentially we Republicans desperately need fewer lawyers, career politicians, and bureaucrats running our party – Martinez being the most obvious example offender here…

18-1 on December 19, 2008 at 1:27 PM

That would be an important statistic if most people knew that the Dems controlled Congress. The MSM is complicit in this in that if they do report these numbers they don’t mention that Congress is under Dem control.

thomasaur on December 19, 2008 at 1:12 PM

If your strategy is to wait for the MSM to report this, we are not going to win anything.

Start screaming. Attack.

Every time a conservative is being interviewed they should mention this.

Every time someone says “Bush Lied”, they should attack.

We have to stop allowing the MSM to frame issues.

faraway on December 19, 2008 at 1:31 PM

Start screaming. Attack.

faraway on December 19, 2008 at 1:31 PM

Not if Newt Gingrich gets his way.

Gregor on December 19, 2008 at 1:38 PM

Every time a conservative is being interviewed they should mention this.

Every time someone says “Bush Lied”, they should attack.

We have to stop allowing the MSM to frame issues.

faraway on December 19, 2008 at 1:31 PM

Look at the Left’s success in the last two elections – don’t make a positive case for their policies just attack attack attack – and the more general the better.

I think we need to make Obama the poster child for chicago corruption in the public’s mind and blame him relentlessly for any economic downturn. Call this the Obama (or Barney Frank) recession.

Republicans have played nice since 2004 and hasn’t worked out real well has it?

18-1 on December 19, 2008 at 1:40 PM

2010 is a long way away. Remember how Iraq was supposed to be THE issue of 2008 but wasn’t. Maybe “US & NATO troops cut off in Afghanistan” will be the issue if the Taliban closes the supply route in Pakistan. Or maybe “US stuck in quagmire war in the Northwest tribal areas of Pakistan trying to keep supply lines open” will be the issue. Maybe Hezbollah nukes Israel with Iranian supplied nuclear missile and “Obama fails to nuke Iran back” will be the issue. Who knows?

The real issue is good governance. That never goes away even if the MSM clouds it with waving a bloody shirt here or there. Basic divides between Democrats and republicans are rooted in just a few basic principles:

Do government controlled economies work better than free market capitalism or not? (The empirical evidence is an emphatic NO)

Does appeasement stop tyrants better than determined will with the force needed to back it up or not. (Once again, the answer is shown by the clear empirical evidence of the relative lack of success of the UN’s appeasement approach versus Reagan and the two Bushes successes in removing: The soviet empire,Daniel Ortega, Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein and Sheik Omar.

Does free trade promote greater well being or does protectionism. (Answer, Adam Smith was right and so were our founding fathers; trade is a key to economic growth and greater prosperity.)

On these bedrocks, the Republican Party will bounce back eventually if they stick to their principles that are proven winners and Democrats will decline because such principles as they have are proven losers. Whether the swing back happens in 1010 or later remains to be seen but that in the long run it will happen, I have no doubt.

KW64 on December 19, 2008 at 1:41 PM

I can’t actually tell where he’s much different than today’s Republicans.

angelat0763 on December 19, 2008 at 1:44 PM

Branch

I thank you for your supportive words. I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t afraid of the pudding faced Franken. But my Marine Corps and south Philly street smarts I trust to carry me through and fight back… this snow and cold is nothing compared to the battle we few conservatives in MN are about to fight!

MNDavenotPC on December 19, 2008 at 1:58 PM

I can’t actually tell where he’s much different than today’s Republicans.
angelat0763 on December 19, 2008 at 1:44 PM

In the last election, we had a choice between a Communist and a Socialist.

If we can’t take back our own freakin’ Party, we can pretty much kiss America goodby.

logis on December 19, 2008 at 2:01 PM

…you all know who you are, and you won’t be able to resist outing yourself by attacking this comment.

Gregor on December 19, 2008 at 12:19 PM

I am one of those people and I admit that I was wrong. However, if you’ll remember, we said at the time that if conservatives stayed home because McCain wasn’t conservative enough, we would end up with Obama. Guess what, we were right about that. So, because of a few petulant children who gathered their marbles and went home when they no longer liked the game, we are now saddled with the most unqualified and socialist leaning president in American history. Thanks for nothing, Gregor.

Kafir on December 19, 2008 at 2:13 PM

Change you can believe in that requires the willing suspension of disbelief.

UltimateBob on December 19, 2008 at 2:30 PM

Republicans have to offer real and positive alternatives to the Obama agenda.

They will also have to do an end-around the BM (backwater media) which will be manufacturing good news and blue skies to pave the way for his royal highness Ob***.

whitetop on December 19, 2008 at 2:32 PM

we said at the time that if conservatives stayed home because McCain wasn’t conservative enough, we would end up with Obama. Guess what, we were right about that. So, because of a few petulant children who gathered their marbles and went home when they no longer liked the game, we are now saddled with the most unqualified and socialist leaning president in American history. Thanks for nothing, Gregor.

Kafir on December 19, 2008 at 2:13 PM

Actually, you’re wrong. You’re referring to the wrong election. I’m speaking of the primary election, where McCain supporters INSISTED that we HAD to vote for the moron because he was the ONLY person who could possibly beat Obama. This, even while huge chunks of Republican voters were insisting that if McCain won the primary they would stay home on Election Day. It’s not like you didn’t know this in advance.

At the same time, other so called conservatives were fighting each other over which of the other RINOS we should be voting for. Unbelievable!

Now, it’s no different. We still see the same arguments being made in the comment section, with the dumbest of the dumb insisting that the thing to do would be to create a third Party and further divide our votes. BRILLIANT!

Gregor on December 19, 2008 at 2:44 PM

Republicans voted for him.

Gregor on December 19, 2008 at 12:27 PM

Not very many in the primary I’m wagering nationwide.
I think it was the states that let Democrats & Independents vote in the Republican primaries that screwed us.
I think it’s a good possibility that the Democrats voting out of their party box saddled us with McCain.

Badger40 on December 19, 2008 at 3:11 PM

Every time a conservative is being interviewed they should mention this.

Every time someone says “Bush Lied”, they should attack.

We have to stop allowing the MSM to frame issues.

faraway on December 19, 2008 at 1:31 PM

Look at the Left’s success in the last two elections – don’t make a positive case for their policies just attack attack attack – and the more general the better.

I think we need to make Obama the poster child for chicago corruption in the public’s mind and blame him relentlessly for any economic downturn. Call this the Obama (or Barney Frank) recession.

Republicans have played nice since 2004 and hasn’t worked out real well has it?

18-1 on December 19, 2008 at 1:40 PM

From your posts to G-d’s ears!

Fight for YOUR LIBERTY

Branch Rickey on December 19, 2008 at 3:53 PM

MNDavenotPC on December 19, 2008 at 1:58 PM

You could always send him back to Calif. after 8 years. That’s what we did with Cynthia McKinney.

Good luck. Go Gophers!

Branch Rickey on December 19, 2008 at 3:57 PM

Gregor on December 19, 2008 at 2:44 PM

I did not support McCain until he won the nomination. I was a Giuliani man. I thought he was the only one smart enough to make a fool out of either Hillary or Obama. Unfortunately, he wasn’t smart enough to come up with a winning election strategy. When Romney dropped out, we were left with McCain.

Regardless, the argument still holds: Those who sat at home because McCain wasn’t conservative enough for them hand delivered Obama to us.

Kafir on December 19, 2008 at 4:21 PM

“Are you any better off today than you were two years ago?”

drjohn on December 19, 2008 at 4:25 PM

Every Republican should preface any comment to the press with “Well, since this Congress has been controlled by the Democrats for the last three years…..”. Mandatory training.

riverrat10k on December 19, 2008 at 4:37 PM

Somewhat OT.
Was Iraq Ron Paul’s main problem with folks on this blog? He was the most in favor of limited govt. and seemed to me to be inherently honest. He did come across as very whiney.
Maybe the libertarian view of the drug war? The folks he attracted?
Not trolling here, just that I agree with Dr. Paul on many issues and he never got far enough to have a chance.
Thx! and please don’t flame me to hard. I have sensitive skin. Started blood pressure meds this week!

riverrat10k on December 19, 2008 at 4:46 PM

No.

spmat on December 19, 2008 at 4:58 PM

Clinton mid-terms, the sequel?

Done That on December 19, 2008 at 5:12 PM

Was Iraq Ron Paul’s main problem with folks on this blog? He was the most in favor of limited govt. and seemed to me to be inherently honest. He did come across as very whiney.
Maybe the libertarian view of the drug war? The folks he attracted?

There were a a few issues outside of his desire to cut and run from Iraq. The Neo-Nazis and leftists rallying to his cause, and his toleration of them, was another.

I think we *need* more libertarianism in the US government but too many self proclaimed libertarians are sliding into liberalitarians, and the tendency of others to threaten to take their ball and go home the second conservatives as a whole disagree with them is distressing.

I would love to see a truly Libertarian Party (unlike the one that goes by that name) that only rarely ran candidates and instead spend its time working for candidates that would advance real libertarian goals while rebuilding support for libertarian policies.

18-1 on December 19, 2008 at 5:16 PM

Trust him with your hole mind.”

dude, if that was a freudian slip it was AWESOME!
:-)

Buckaroo on December 19, 2008 at 12:45 PM

Thanks roo. I figured someone would get it.

Basilsbest on December 19, 2008 at 6:05 PM

In order for that to take place, however, Republicans have to offer real and positive alternatives to the Obama agenda. They need to rebuild their credibility as a small-government party

I’m afraid that is a pretty tall order for the pack of supposed conservatives that run the party now.

conservnut on December 19, 2008 at 8:16 PM

Ed,
We know that obama is a boon for the GOP, and we will soon have a GOP guv in IL, guaranteed, so please keep quiet about this before the dems see their dynasty falling apart

ConservativePartyNow on December 19, 2008 at 11:25 PM

’08 was a horrible year for Republicans but not for conservatives. 2010 could be a great year for the real deals.

Go RIGHT young man.

Mojave Mark on December 20, 2008 at 12:39 PM