The Earmark Eight, and the Food Fifteen

Everyone is busy analyzing what the Democrats have learned from the midterm elections.  The real question is what Republicans have learned from this election.  Within 25 minutes, 8 Republicans voted to continue the practice of pork barrel spending, while 15 voted to give the FDA unlimited power to shut down food producers and cut jobs.

Here is a list of the 8 Republicans who voted against the Coburn AMDT. to S.510 (S. AMDT. 4697), which would have placed a moratorium on earmarks.

Bennett (R-UT)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Inhofe (R-OK)Lugar (R-IN)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Shelby (R-AL)
Voinovich (R-OH)

Here is a list of those 15 Republicans who supported the unconstitutional, food-Nazi, job killing bill. (S.510)

Alexander (R-TN)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Collins (R-ME)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kirk (R-IL)
LeMieux (R-FL)
Lugar (R-IN)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Snowe (R-ME)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)

The amazing thing about both lists is that they include so many names from ruby red states like Utah, Mississippi, Alabama, Indiana, Wyoming, etc.  Is this the best that we can do from such conservative states?  Do the Democrats elect Senators from deep blue states Vermont and California who vote with conservatives?  Also, it is interesting to note that Mark Kirk has wasted no time in joining the Senate and voting with the Dems.  And as we predicted, Joe Manchin has voted with the Democrat leadership every single time!  With friends like these who needs enemies?

Update:  Here is a synopsis of the food bill from Fox News.  If this is not a socialist, job killing bill, then I don't know what is.  

• Gives the FDA long-sought power to force a company to recall foods believed to be contaminated and to impose fees on those companies under a mandatory recall.
• Authorizes the FDA to impose new fees for reinspecting those facilities and for registering food importers.
• Requires FDA to inspect registered domestic “high risk” food producers (as defined by HHS – parent of FDA) at least once five years after passage of the bill.
• Requires food processors, growers, and importers to meet additional safety requirements for high-risk foods and to meet new safety and security rules for the importation of food.
• Requires companies to turn over test results and other records to federal officials on domestic or imported food items believed to be contaminated.
• Requires imported food suppliers to meet established food safety requirements with a certification.
• Requires food processors to impose and monitor food safety systems.

John Danforth is Wrong About the RINOs

Recently, reports have been circulating in the Capitol Hill newspapers that conservatives are planning to challenge Dick Lugar and other RINOs in 2012.  Last week, former Missouri Senator John Danforth gave the following assessment of a potential primary challenge to Lugar:

“If Dick Lugar, having served five terms in the U.S. Senate and being the most respected person in the Senate and the leading authority on foreign policy, is seriously challenged by anybody in the Republican Party, we have gone so far overboard that we are beyond redemption.” 

This is simply one of the most preposterous statements concerning electoral politics that I have ever heard from a once respected Republican official.  Richard Lugar is the leading Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, yet there is not a single policy issue in which he differs from the Democrat Chairman John Kerry.  John Kerry is one of the most radical Senators in American history, but Lugar has supported every one of his appeasement policies; from his dealings with Israel to his support for unilateral disarmament with Russia.  He fought Senator Jessee Helms at every turn in order to promote Kerry's policies.  If the Republicans win back the Senate in 2012, Lugar would be slated to be the chairman of that committee.  I challenge Mr. Danforth to list one policy that Lugar will change from Kerry's tenure as leader of that panel.  The only difference will be that we will own all of the moral relativist, appeasement, and anti-American exceptionalism driven policies that emerge from that committee.

Interior Department to Lock up Drilling Because of Polar Bears

In yet another example of overzealous land confiscation on the part of the DOI, the WSJ is reporting that Interior has "designated 187,000 square miles of offshore sea ice and other areas as critical habitat for polar bears".  This act will severely hamper drilling activity in that large, oil rich region.  Although the designation doesn't automatically close off the land to development, it calls on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to research whether outside development will negatively effect the polar bear population.  Furthermore, it exposes the developers to endless lawsuits from radical eco-socialist public interest law firms.

This is a perfect illustration of the regressivness of the progressives.  They will destroy hundreds of local jobs in Alaska, while simultaneously keeping the price of energy high and unaffordable for the "little guy" whom they purport to care for.

It is also another example of the growing amount of public land that is either directly owned by the Feds or heavily regulated.  The DOI has been using contrived pseudo- environmental concerns to thwart other important activities in different parts of the country.  Obama's DOI has been hamstringing our border agents by preventing them from building watch towers along the border due to concerns about plant and animal life in the Arizona desert.

The pattern of overzealous regulations and land annexation on the part of the DOI is very disconcerting.  This is another reason why it is so vital that we have solid conservatives calling the shots on the natural resources and energy committees.  Any future chairman of those committees must make it an immediate priority to reign in the interior department's unconstitutional infringement on our economy, security, and pursuit of happiness.

Maryland Democrats Love their Pork, Even for Illegals

If you travel on Maryland highways, and wonder why you encounter random construction every few miles, look no farther than Maryland's two Senators for the source of the prodigal and costly juggernauts.  Yesterday, the Baltimore Sun published an article lamenting the fact that a GOP moratorium on earmarks will severely effect Maryland's share of the public lard.  They also reveal that Barbara Mikulski is one of the most prolific porkers in the Senate, hauling in over $50 million in pork for FY 2011.  Junior Senator Ben Cardin is quickly catching up, while some of Maryland's congressmen like Dutch Rupersberger are willing to fight to the death to defend their raiding of the public trough.

Anyone who travels on Maryland's interstate highways and major byways can attest to the fact that there is construction everywhere.  Most of the construction sites are on roads that have recently been paved and appear to be nothing more than wasted money.  What about the lost revenue and productivity due to unwarranted traffic jams?  Tough luck!  That's what you get in a one party state, in which its congressional delegation includes a member on the Senate Approps Committee (Mikulski), House Approps Committee (Rupersperger), a House Leader (Steny Hoyer), and House campaign chief (Chris Van Hollen).

As if the highway pork is not enough, Mikulski plans to earmark $750,000 for the criminal organization, Casa de Maryland.  Keep in mind that these illegal alien smugglers already secure over $1 million in state funding.  Maybe we should open an organization involved in slave trading and ask congress for some bacon to fund its operations.  After all, as long as it's a Democrat who advocates for the criminal behavior, they won't face electoral reprisal in the state of Maryland.  In fact, if Democrats have their way, the criminals will be voting in our state elections.

Andy Harris's Health Care Request: Who are the Real Hypocrites?

The drive-by media is attempting to gin up political hay for Democrats by accusing Andy Harris of hypocrisy.  Last week, Andy Harris asked if he can pre-buy his health coverage from the FEHBP because he was told that he would not be insured until February.  In response, the government run Democrat lobby, AFSCME, is calling upon Republicans to opt out of the "government-provided" health care benefits that are given to congressmen.  These clowns are missing one basic point about the health care debate, which is partially exacerbated by a lack of articulation from most Republicans.

We all agree that the cost of health care and health insurance has skyrocketed (even before Obama Care, which is already causing severe increases in premiums) to the point that it is hard for individuals to pay for it on their own.  However, the factors that are driving up those costs are all related to the 50 years of Democrat inducement of taxation, regulation, and litigation which has all but eliminated the free market from the health care industry.  The result is that all of us (yes, even conservatives like Harris) must suffer with artificially high prices and are forced to rely on third parties to provide it; namely the employer.  If the employer is the federal government, then they are even more responsible for providing coverage because they have destroyed health care insurance in this country.

The fundamental effect of the GOP's communication problem lies with the perception of most people that the Republicans own the status quo of health care, while the Democrats own the changes made by Obama Care.  To that end, although the country strongly opposes the socialist takeover, they are also wary (and justifiably so) of the rising costs of health care and health insurance even without Obama Care.  Unfortunately, the reality is that the Democrats own the problems with the current system as well as the disaster that will arise from the new system.

Tony Campbell, Baltimore County's Obama Supporting Republican Chairman

Lost amidst the devastation of of the Maryland GOP this past election, was a low profile election for Chairman of the Baltimore County Republican Central Committee.  Baltimore County is one of the few localities in which the voters choose the committee chairman as opposed to the committee's members. During the September primary, a little known challenger, Tony Campbell, edged out incumbent Chris Cavey for the Chairmanship of the Committee.  Some members of the committee warned that Campbell had worked for an organization named "Republicans for Obama" and that we were facing an Orwellian situation in which there would be a wolf gaurding our hen house.  Well, it appears that our fears have been confirmed.

Last week, Campbell urged his fellow committee members to endorse radical, campaign finance crook,  Democrat Ken Oliver for County Council Chairman because he would "become the first African-American chair of the County Council".  In addition, he is demanding a commission for organizing fundraisers for local Republicans.  Last Wednesday, he sent out an email to the other members of the central committee telling them to impeach him of they don't like it.

Folks, you can't make this stuff up!  Do the Democrats have county party leaders who are members of Democrats for Palin?  Why are we saddled with this nonsense when our party is so small and insignificant in the first place?

Baltimore County is the key jurisdiction to any electoral success in Maryland and it is imperative that we have a committed conservative to lead our effort in this area.  Is it too much to ask for to have the leaders of our decimating fractious party be authentic conservatives?

Unfortunately, it appears that we are stuck with this impostor in Baltimore County for 4 years.  But we have a golden opportunity to elect a conservative tea party leader as state party chairman on December 11th.  Sam Hale, the founder of Maryland Society of Patriots, stands out as the only effective conservative voice among many uninspiring candidates.  You can see an interivew of Sam with our friend Mark Newman here.  Call your Republican Central Committee members and urge them to vote for Sam Hale so we don't wind up with Obama Republicans running the full state Republican Party.

Lamar Smith and Steve King: The Paradigm Committee Chairmen

When the Republican led 112th congress is sworn in next January, the magnitude of the turnover will be most evident on the Judiciary Committee.  Instead of radical John Conyers heading the committee, we will have border champion Lamar Smith as chairman.  Also, instead of Zoe Lofgren chairing the Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship, Steve King will lead that panel.  Today, the Miami Herald is reporting that Congressman King plans to go after birthright citizenship during the next congress.  While other Republicans are intimidated by the left's demagoguery and distortion of the 14th amendment, King realizes that the constitution never meant to bestow citizenship upon babies that are illegally thrown across the border.

This latest news concerning Steve King made me reflect on what we are lacking in leadership of other vital House committees.  For many years, we have been conditioned to accept the reality that important committees (A's and B's) will be chaired by the old bull, compromising, Democrat light veterans.  We see this playing out in regard to the chairmanships of the Energy and Approps Committees.  But why should we settle for mediocrity when it comes to committee chairmanships?  Why should we have our weakest link on spending issues chair the Appropriations Committee, or a big government statist chair the Energy and Commerce Committee?

We should have our toughest guns who have excelled in those particular issues lead the committee.  Lamar Smith and Steve King have fought against illegal immigration for years and therefore rightfully deserve the leadership of those panels which deal with immigration related issues.  However, when you examine the seniority of the other committees you find that at best the leadership is mediocre and at worst it is Democrat light.  This is why the Judiciary Committee stands out to me as a guide for who should be appointed Chairman of their respective committees.

Republicans Must Eliminate Ethanol Mandate

The government's ethanol mandates embody everything that is wrong with Democrats, RINOs, and Marxists.  It is an unconstitutional regulation that has enriched a few special interests with $7.7 billion taxpayer dollars, regressively drove up the cost of food and fuel; and by extension all products and services that rely on fuel based delivery.  The tax credits for energy producers who blend fuel with ethanol have created so many unintended (or intended by some)  negative consequences that even Al Gore is calling for its repeal.  The tax credits are slated to expire in one month and yet, we have not heard much from the newly elected Republican majority in the House.  Is your Republican Congressman more conservative than Al Gore?

According to analysts at Goldman Sachs, the ethanol industry consumes 41% of the domestic corn crop.  Corn is at the top of the food chain, so by creating an artificial shortage in supply of corn, the feds have caused a spike in the cost of meat and chicken as well. In addition, it costs much more to produce a barrel of ethanol than it does a barrel of oil.  Also, aside for providing corporate welfare to domestic ethanol producers, the government slapped high tariffs on imported ethanol.  This prevents us from importing cheaper, more efficient sugar based ethanol from Brazil.  All of this leads to higher prices for home heating and gasoline for cars.  The costs for trucks are even more devastating, as most domestic products that are transported by trucks are now more expensive for consumers.

Every Republican needs to make this a top priority.  Energy is the lifeblood of our economy, while fuel and food represent the basic needs of the low income Americans whom the liberals purport to defend.  This is a perfect opportunity for us to push a prudent policy that will "stimulate" the economy, save taxpayer dollars, put corrupt lobbyists on the defense, and make political hay from it as the same time.  However, does anyone believe that Fred Upton would support repeal of ethanol if he were to become Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee?  Call your congressman and tell him/her to vote to repeal the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit.

Joe Manchin, The Left Wing Lapdog for Radical Feminism

We knew that it wouldn't take too long for Joe Manchin to shed his conservative camouflage and leave it behind in the Mountain state.  Well, it turns out that he has gone all in for the job killing, socialist agenda on his first day in the Senate.  After voting to make anti gun, cap and trade supporting Harry Reid Majority Leader, Manchin voted with Reid on two other measures yesterday.  He voted for the job killing FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (S. 510) and the Paycheck Fairness Act(S. 3772).

We already detailed some of the egregious provisions of the food bill, as well as the disappointing fact that 14 Republicans supported it.  Luckily, the Republicans held together and blocked cloture on the paycheck social engineering bill by a 58-41 vote.  Ben Nelson was the only Democrat to oppose both measures, while Manchin voted in goose step with the leadership.  This bill does not mandate equal pay for women with the same education, experience, and qualifications for the same job in the same place of employment.  That was already required in the original equal Pay Act of 1963.  The only purpose of this law is to expand the requirement to peg women's wages to established salaries for males everywhere.  This will expose job creators to potential litigation demanding established male wages of other workplaces or other regions that have a higher cost of living.  The only possible outcome of such legislation would be increased unemployment and higher costs to produce goods and services during a recession.  So this bill is taxation, regulation, and litigation rolled up in one monstrosity.  Yet, Joe Manchin didn't bat an eyelash as he cast his vote in support of this bill.

Manchin will stand for reelection in 2012 with Obama on the ballot in a solid red state.  There is no reason why he shouldn't be defeated in a walk.  Any takers?

14 Republican Vote for New Nanny State Regulations on Food Producers

If there is anything that is clear from the outcome of the elections, it is that we have barely changed the Senate.  Yes, we have gained some seats and moved some Republican open seats to the right for the 112th congress.  However, there are still many Republicans that remain in the Senate who have shown no signs of changing their big government tendencies.  Today, 14 Republicans joined every Democrat (except Ben Nelson, who is obviously pandering to keep his seat) to invoke cloture on the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (S. 510).  Aside for the fact that this bill will add more layers of bureaucracy and expenses to the FDA and DOA, it will also burden food producers with more onerous regulations and kill jobs.  There is no evidence that this will improve the safety of our food, which is already the safest in the world.  As Tom Coburn so aptly explained:

"Fixing the real problems is about making the bureaucracy work right, not adding more layers and rules and bureaucracy," Coburn said. "I want us to have food safety, but for every dollar additionally spent, how much can you really improve? We have the safest food in the world, but you can't get to 100 percent. So at what point do you stop spending additional dollars? It's like homeland security. Can we ever spend enough money to be absolutely sure nothing happens? No, we can't."

Here is the list of Obama's Republicans:

Any Supporter of START is a RINO

While there is much debate concerning how "big of a tent" the Republican Party should be concerning social issues, there is no excuse for any Republican to damage our national security and support unilateral disarmament.  The START treaty is a unilateral demand proposed by Vladimir Putin and its sole intent is to weaken our missile capabilities and our deterrent against Russia.

When the treaty was first taken up in the Senate, I figured that it lacked 51 votes, much less the 67 super majority that is required for its ratification.  After all, who except for the fringe left would support a treaty that is being forced upon us by our sworn enemies that are known to violate every treaty on record.  As it turns out, there are no clear opponents of the treaty in the Democrat Party, while there are a number of Republicans who are considering supporting it.  Senators Isackson, Lugar, and Corker already voted for the treaty in committee.  This doesn't even include the list of usual RINOs.  Now, Minority Whip John Kyl sounds like he thinks there is something to consider with START.  All the headlines today are focused on the fact that Kyl opposes the consideration of the treaty in the lame duck session.  Here is what Kyl had to say:

Congress Can Implement Attrition through Enforcement Illegal Immigration Policy

The pro open borders advocates in both parties often present the American people with the false choice of amnesty or physically rounding up every last illegal alien.  They assert that deportations are so unpractical and distasteful that the only way to solve the illegal immigration problem is by legalizing them.  Those with some sense of sanity have always realized that the source of the problem is our criminal incentivizing of illegal behavior, and a concerted effort to enforce the laws would drain the illegal population through "attrition by enforcement".  Here are two immigration related updates that vividly illustrate the effectiveness of enforcement and the disaster of enticement.

Fox News reported last week that according to a recent study, roughly 100,000 illegals have left Arizona since the passage of SB 1070. In fact, the Mexican government is claiming that almost 25,000 illegals have returned to Mexico.  The amazing thing is that the major provision of SB 1070 is not even being enforced due to the court injunction.  This just proves that a mere perception of enforcement will make the environment inhospitable for illegals, forcing them to go home.  Let's call it attrition before enforcement.

The Sorry State of the Maryland GOP

Several major Democrat leaders in PG County have been arrested, including County Executive Jack Johnson.  Yet, there is no noise coming from the Maryland GOP.  In order to win elections we need to register on the political map.  Unfortunately, in Maryland, the GOP never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.  Here is a sober commentary from our friends at Red Maryland:

"Jack Johnson has long had a reputation for questionable ethics.

Democrat Leslie Johnson has just been elected to represent PG Council District 6. No Republican ran against her.

Council District 6 largely overlaps General Assembly District 25. The Democratic Senator from that district is under federal indictment on numerous counts. No Republican ran against him.

I am unaware of any official Republican Party statements concerning the indictment of Sen. Currie or previous questions raised about Jack Johnson's behavior in office.

The Republican Party is unlikely to make much progress in rebuilding itself in Maryland when it sits idly by, not challenging corrupt Democratic politicians at the polls or in the media."

I would add that this is also occurring in the same year that Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon was removed from office for stealing target gift cards that were intended to be given to charity.  What vice do the Democrats need to committ in order to solicit a strong reaction from the GOP?

Democrat Media Hosting Republican Presidential Debates

Presidential primary politics has already begun to percolate into the media following the midterm elections.  There is now discussion of hosting the first GOP primary debate at the Reagan Library as early as this coming spring.  While many conservatives are upset that we are already contemplating debates before the field of candidates is set, I have another bone to pick concerning this development. 

Politico announced yesterday that they will be sponsoring that debate at the Reagan Library along with ...... NBC news!  This is astounding.  We have already ceded over the general election debates to be controlled and orchestrated by the Democrat media.  Do we need to have them moderate our own primary debates as well?  Keep in mind that these media types live in a very different world than we do, and their policy premises and understanding of the political dynamic makes them unqualified to moderate a debate among conservatives.

We should have at least one debate that is moderated by a panel of respected conservative journalists, talk radio figures, and others who would frame the debate in a meaningful way to conservatives. Yet, we are going to let those who garner vociferous antipathy towards conservatives have the opportunity to influence the selection of our leader!  Do we really need moderators who will ask the candidate what they will do to curb global warming?

House GOP: Forget About the Symbolism, Let's go for the Meat and Potatoes

There has been a pervasive misconception that has been promulgated by those within and outside of the Republican Party concerning the power of the GOP House majority .  They assert that because the Democrats control the other branches of government, there is no way we can pass any meaningful conservative legislation until 2012.

There seems to be an assumption that we can only scuttle the passage of new nefarious bills, and should sit pretty until we can win back the Presidency.  In fact, they believe that our only proactive legislative agenda should be one that involves issues in which we can seek common ground with the Democrats, thus garnering positive media for leading a productive and bi-partisan congress.  This view of the political landscape is counterproductive and will lead to the same unsuccessful cycle of 94'-06', in which we failed to deliver on conservative change and eventually forfeited the majority.

The Republican House leaders have floated some good ideas concerning reform in procedures and parliamentary rules.  We always welcome more transparency in government and fully support the decentralization of power in the House as well as the posting of legislation online before its passage.  However, these changes are full of symbolism, but lack any real substantial element of conservative change.  So, we will post legislation on the internet 72 hours before the vote.  But which legislation?  Are we going to squander our historical mandate on symbolism, procedural reform, and playing defense; without a coherent and proactive policy agenda to strike out at the heart of the welfare and regulatory state?

We all realize that the Democrats still control the Senate and the Presidency, but we will control the most effective legislative body.  Unlike in the Senate, we will have full operational control of the House and have the ability to pass anything (assuming that there aren't too many Rinos left).  Let's get to work on our conservative agenda and let the Democrats and Obama vote down our proposals that will undoubtedly remain popular with the public.  Here is a list of agenda items that we should shove down the throats of the Democrats every week, while forcing them to be on the wrong side of popular legislation with the public:

Florida Exit Poll: Rubio and Scott won the Hispanic Vote

We are lectured ad nauseum by the open borders Republicans about the electoral devastation that is looming if we fail to enact an amnesty program.  They assert that our strong support for borders and immigration enforcement will drive away all Hispanic voters.  Well, the Miami Herald observes that not only didn't we get swamped by Hispanics; we actually won their vote outright in Florida.  Both Marco Rubio and Rick Scott campaigned on their support for Arizona SB 1070.  In fact, Rick Scott won his stunning upset over Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum exclusively due to his promise of implementing a similar law in Florida.  We were told that Scott would be viewed like David Duke by most Hispanic voters.  To those who understand the importance of immigration enforcement, the election results are not surprising.  Here is the exit polling data from Florida, as reported in the Miami Herald:

Republican Marco Rubio, who is Cuban-American, got 55 percent of the Hispanic vote in the U.S. Senate race, compared to no-party Charlie Crist with 23 percent and Democrat Kendrick Meek with 21 percent. Republican Rick Scott got 50 percent of the Hispanic vote in the governor's race, while Democrat Alex Sink got 48 percent.

Mark Kirk Might Vote for Disclose Act

Here we go again.  The same vicious cycle seems to repeat itself ad nauseum.  We become all excited about the prospects of picking up Senate seats during the election.  Then, within a few days these RINOs return to their old ways.  The Hill is reporting that Mark Kirk is considering whether to vote with the Democrats and support the unconstitutional Disclose Act.  Even though he voted against this particular bill while he was in the House, he is showing willingness to sell himself out to liberal special interest groups that are pressuring RINOs to support this legislation.  Here is what Kirk had to say for himself:

“Federal candidates should disclose all of their campaign contributions within 24 hours on the Internet. I hope we can get that done in the next Senate and Congress. Also, for all of these outside groups we don’t want to silence any political voice ... we should have them disclose all of their donors, both from the left and the right.”



The Hill further notes, that these liberal advocacy groups will be pressuring Lisa Murkowski to support the Disclose Act.  There is no doubt in my mind that if she ultimately returns to the Senate, she will take revenge against Republicans and support much of the signature legislation of the left.  There is very little hope for Senate Republicans, even after last week's gains.  The House is where we need to make our stand.  This all brings me back to my favorite cartoon that my wife illustrated in honor of our Senate Republicans:

Bright Prospects for GOP Farm Team

After examining the results of state and local elections, it appears that the lower  the profile of the election, the better the result for conservatives.  In other words, where the Democrat/media smear machine was silent, the majority of the voters picked the Republican.  This explains our historic margins in the state legislature races across the country.  In addition, we picked up 6 Secretary of State offices and 5 (or 6, depending upon the fraud in California) Attorneys General offices.  See more about those races here.

After examining the down the ticket races more carefully, it appears that we have picked up 8 offices that are roughly the equivalent to the CFO of the state.  In some states they are referred to as Comptroller, in others they are the state Treasurer or CFO.  We picked up those seats in Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin.  As you can see, some of those turnovers were in vital swing states.  These positions are important, not just because of their control over the budget, but also as future farm teams for higher office.  Overall, we are in a very good position to field quality candidates in every swing state for the foreseeable future.

Two More New York House Seats in Play

For all of the talk concerning the Republican's dismal showing in the northeast, we did exceptionally well in New York.  We picked up five seats across the state, and now there is a possibility that we can win two remaining contested seats.  In NY-25, Republican Ann Marie Buerkle is now leading Democratic Rep. Dan Maffei by 659 votes.  With many staunch Republican military ballots yet to be counted, I am confident that we will pull this one out.  This is quite significant because NY-25 (which represents Syracuse and it's suburbs) is actually rated D+3 by Charlie Cook, and would represent one of the few D seats that we successfully flipped this cycle.

The big news over the weekend was in NY-1 (Suffolk County, Long Island) in which an error in a ballot machine has turned a certain victory for the incumbent Democrat into a possible defeat.  On election night, Democrat Tim Bishop was ahead of Republican Randy Altschuler by 3,400 votes.  This race was actually called for Bishop fairly early in the night.  Amazingly, over the weekend, the local board of elections discovered an error in one machine that has now created a 400 vote lead for Altschuler.  According to the AP, "Board of Elections commissioner Wayne Rogers said the original numbers were reported by telephone and relayed through intermediaries before being entered into the county's computer system."

There were a bunch of House races in which the Democrat won by just a few thousand votes.  One has to wonder how many other races were erroneously called for Democrats.  It is amazing to me that the Democrats seem to win almost every close race, or any race that goes past election day.  These two races in New York might turn out to be exceptions to the rule.  If that is the case, we will net 7 seats from New York, the most of any state in the country.  If not for the conservative/Republican split in NY-23, in which Doug Hoffman remained on the ballot, we would have flipped that seat as well.  How ironic that our biggest victory in the House elections would have occurred in the bluest of states!  One could only imagine what would have happened had we had substantive challengers on the top of the ticket.

Election 2010: A Look at Some Down the Ticket Races

 There has been a lot of focus on the major Republican victories in state legislatures.  Most people haven't focused as much on some of the other statewide races across the country.  Well, according to preliminary results, it appears that we have won some Attorney General and Secretary of State offices in several key states.  It is important to note that these offices are vital to our efforts to augment our farm team of future candidates in some key states.  Many Gubernatorial and Senatorial candidates in recent years have been AG's or SOS's.  Here is a brief synopsis of the Republican victories in these key races:

Secretaries of State

We have previously expressed the importance of this office due to the election fraud laws that are being passed by Democrats across the country.  It appears that we have picked up 6 of these offices, some of them in key swing states.  There will be new Republican Secretaries of State in Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas (Kris Kobach), Iowa, New Mexico, and the all important state of Ohio.  In New Mexico, there hasn't been a Republican SOS since 1928!  Also, in Oklahoma, the Governor picks the Sec. of State.  Currently, a Democrat occupies that office, but that will change with the inauguration of Mary Fallin.  In January, Republicans will control 26 Sec. of State offices, while Democrats will control 20.

Attorneys General

These positions have growing importance due to the coming state's rights clashes in the realm of issues such as immigration, health care, and environmental regulations.  Our election primer on the AG races is here. We could have done a little better on the AG front, but it appears that we have picked up at least 5 offices.  We have added Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Ohio, and Oklahoma to the list of state AG's that we control.  The Democrats still control 27 of these offices.

A Comprehensive Roundup of our Stunning Victory

Earlier today, I tried to put some of the disappointing Senate news in perspective. Now, with the negative news out of the way, let's sift through the rubble and reflect on the amazing news of the night. Here is a rundown and analysis of our victories in the House.  Later, we will analyze the state legislature and AG races.

House

It looks like we have a stunning 65 or so net gain on our hands.  Aside for the amazing fact in itself that we have picked up the most seats since 1946, and are poised to hold the most seats since the 20's, there is much more positive news in this result than meets the eye.  Normally, when one party wins more than 30 seats, let alone 65, they must immediately prepare for the arduous task of holding those seats for the next cycle.  This year is different.  If you look at the electoral map, the Republicans actually barely won any D rated districts (using the Cook PVI), while they kicked out almost every Democrat from an R rated district.  This represents a permanent realignment.  In fact, there are still a few more seats on the table in which we came close to winning.  If we can recruit more good candidates we can wipe out the remaining red seat Dems.  It is also important to notice that those few remaining blue dogs are the most conservative Democrats.  So basically the Democrat caucus will be the most radical caucus ever, with the exception of a few red state Dems who will be forced to either switch parties or vote with us.

Another important point to consider is that we are now slated to control redistricting in almost every important state (we will post more regarding Governors and state legislatures later).  Also, more red states will receive extra seats and more blue states will lose seats under reapportionment.  These majorities will be permanent and will expand, even if we fail to make inroads into blue districts (which unfortunately seems to be the prognosis after last night's disappointment in these areas).

Here are some interesting numbers concerning the House

The Political Dynamic in the Senate is Much Better than it Appears

After the completion of an election with a record amount of competitive state and federal races, it is often hard to sift through the rubble and ascertain the true meaning of the results. Many of us are a bit disappointed with the results on the Senate side. I'll be doing a comprehensive analysis of the House, Gubernatorial, state legislature, and other statewide races in a later post. For now I wanted to tackle the bad news first. In reality, I think there is a lot to look forward to in the Senate in the long run.


Let's start with the worst news of the night; the Senate results. There is no doubt that the loss of such a great conservative as Sharon Angle is devastating. The fact that instead of a tea party patriot representing Nevada, we will still have Harry Reid is quite nauseating. This was by far the worst news of the night. Other bad news was Joe Miller, Carly Fiorina, and possibly even Ken Buck (we will have to see what sort of cheating occurs in Washington and Colorado). But here are some important things to consider:

• We will still have at least 47 Republican Senators, and maybe even 48 or 49 when all the votes are counted. This will present the Democrats with a challenge of governing a totally unworkable majority. So they will hold the responsibility of governing (thus taking away one of Obama's selling points for 2012), but will have very little power.

• Many people have lost sight of how many good conservatives we have gained in the Senate. Instead of Blanch Lincoln in Arkansas we have John Boozman. We also have Pat Toomey, Rand Paul, Ron Johnson, John Hoeven, and Dan Coats (instead of pseudo-moderate Evan Bayh). Also, let's not overlook the fact that we have turned so many incumbent R seats to the right. Instead of a RINO in Florida, we now have Marco Rubio. In Kansas, Jerry Moran is replacing La Raza Senator Brownback. Roy Blunt is not a tea partier, but he has a better voting record than outgoing Senator Kit Bond. Kelly Ayotte is much better than Judd Gregg in New Hampshire. Rob Portman in Ohio is almost tantamount to a pickup because Voinovich was an absolute RINO. Mike Lee is replacing Bob Bennett. So in reality, we have really moved at least 12 seats to the right (not including potential wins by Rossi and Buck).

Late Night Upsets

Ok, well things are looking to be very close to the way both the Senate and House polls were predicting. I'll have a full roundup and analysis of all the House races as well as some of the state legislature, Attorney General, and other statewide races tomorrow. For now, here are two potential upsets.

IL-8: With almost 90% reporting Republican Joe Walsh is virtually tied with Democrat Congresswomen Mellisa Bean.

TX-27: With 87% reporting Republican Blake Farenthold in running closely ahead of progressive leader Solomon Ortiz.

We'll see if they pull it out.

Making Sense of the Pre-Election Chaos

As we head into the final hours of the 2010 elections, there have been conflicting indications as to where we are headed on election night.  Here are some things to consider:

- Although tomorrow night will undoubtedly be a good night for us, the election is still very volatile and there is a wide disparity in terms of possible outcomes.  The election results could be similar to 1994 in which we picked up 8 Senate and 52 House seats.  On the other hand, it could be a super wave that could lead to a Senate majority, as well as up to 100 more seats in the House.  We therefore cannot rest until the polls close.  Call all your friends and family and make sure they vote Republican.

- Part of the reason why there is still so much uncertainty is because of the dichotomy between the macro polling and the individual state polling.  Let's put it bluntly.  Both the 15 point Gallup generic ballot lead and the state Senate polls cannot be true.  If the Republicans really lead by such a margin on the generic ballot polling, then there is no way that they are in such tight races in California, West Virginia, Washington, and Colorado.  If the generic macro polling data that gives the GOP a 30 point lead among independents and a 6 point lead among women is really accurate, then all those races are going in our direction.  In fact, the battle lines would move as far as to place Delaware and Connecticut in play.  Conversely, if the state polling is correct, then there is no way that the macro polling is accurate.

-  Turnout Models: This is connected to the previous point.  Most of the state polling that shows the GOP wave stalling in some Senate and Gov. races predict a turnout model similar to that of 2006.  Even Rasmussen has been doing this.  Their most recent Washington poll which has Rossi up 1, is pegged exactly to the 2006 party ID numbers.  The most recent Survey USA poll which had Boxer up by 8, assumed a more favorable Democrat turnout than in 2006.  This could provide us with a resolution to the contradiction between the state and macro polling data.  If we are to assume that the macro polling numbers (generic ballot, demographics, enthusiasm, etc.) are correct, then we have to add at least 5 points to every Senate race poll to account for the more favorable turnout models.  Nate Silver argues that this is one of the reasons why the wave can be even bigger than expected.

- House Polls: The House wave keeps growing even as we speak.  If the Republicans would just win the R rated districts, they would pick up 70 seats.  Yet, there are dozens more incumbents in deep D territory that are seriously vulnerable, and some are certain to go down.  All of the polling data confirms this.  Just today, there was a poll out of CT-5 in which Republican Sam Caliguiri was up 9 points in a D+2 district!  If this is true, there is no way that we aren't doing better in the Senate races.  Again, there is something flawed in the turnout models of these polls.