Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sorry, O, the voters were saying 'No'
NY Post ^ | November 15, 2010 | John Podhoretz

Posted on 11/16/2010 2:04:38 AM PST by Scanian

President Obama sounded a bizarre note upon his return home on Sunday when asked about upcoming ne gotiations with Republicans in Congress: "They're still flush with victory, having run a strategy that was all about saying no," he said.

The thing is it doesn't matter what the GOP strategy was in the election's run-up. What matters is what the voters said by the way they cast their votes. It was the voters who said no.

A remarkably original analysis of election results by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research makes this not just an assertion but a matter of fact. The study demonstrates that more than 20 seats lost by Democrats -- at least a third of the overall loss -- went to the GOP as a result of liberal policy votes.

In one sense, the survey should make Obama feel a little better, since Republicans needed 37 seats to take control. This means he can assign the Democratic loss of control in the House to the economy alone. Why? Because the survey estimates that 40 seats were lost to Democrats due to the economy's weakness.

In another sense, it should make him feel far worse, because the 20-plus seats lost above and beyond the economy are -- according to the Stanford survey -- entirely attributable to Obama's left-liberal policies.

Obama clearly wants to blame the economy's woes for his crushing defeat, in part because he seems to assume he bears no blame for them. Yet that is, to be charitable, a profoundly problematic assumption.

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2010midterms; elections; leftliberalpolicies; obama; podhoretz; republicans

1 posted on 11/16/2010 2:04:43 AM PST by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Scanian

It is difficult to understand how the Dens could nominate someone so stupid.


2 posted on 11/16/2010 2:12:56 AM PST by DooDahhhh (hH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DooDahhhh

> It is difficult to understand how the Dens could nominate someone so stupid.

Until you look at what the Republicans nominated for president in 2008.

The power elites don’t get it.

They continue to feed us progressive drek, saying, “This is good for you.”

May we continue to spew this pablum out of our mouths.


3 posted on 11/16/2010 2:16:32 AM PST by Westbrook (Having children does not divide your love, it multiplies it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DooDahhhh

That party has become-—if you’ll excuse the expression-—”chickified,” in addition to radicalized and socialistic.

The typical Dhimmi voter functions on raw emotion; don’t confuse them with the facts-—”feelings” are what matter to them.

Voters from the Dhimmi Party found Obozo to be the “feel good” candidate and that got him tons of votes from the “feelies.”

And, let’s not forget all the silly libs who thought that voting for 0 would somehow expunge them of their “white guilt.”


4 posted on 11/16/2010 2:26:55 AM PST by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

“They’re still flush with victory, having run a strategy that was all about saying no,” he said.”

This is from the party of “no” that insisted on taking the US down with it’s refusal to act on the debacle of Freddie and Fannie and insisted that the people across the country shoud be forced to own a home whether they could afford one or not.


5 posted on 11/16/2010 2:26:59 AM PST by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like what you say))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freeangel

The ‘Rats are resorting to literally making up total BS as they go along.

What you say is true but there is no reality whatsoever involved in their rhetoric.


6 posted on 11/16/2010 2:30:12 AM PST by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

I wonder why I never had any white guilt?


7 posted on 11/16/2010 2:38:00 AM PST by DooDahhhh (hH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

BO is blind to reality. He’s an egomaniac with a narcissistic personality disorder... everything wrong is someone else fault. Typical liberal, incapable of accepting responsibility for anything.


8 posted on 11/16/2010 2:40:25 AM PST by maddog55 (OBAMA, You can't fix stupid...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DooDahhhh

Because you are conservative and haven’t fallen into the PC trap?


9 posted on 11/16/2010 2:41:33 AM PST by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

Saying that ~20 seats were lost directly as a result of leftist policies and ~40 were lost because of the economy is creating a false dichotomy. The bad economy, in this case, is a direct result of wrong-headed leftist policies.

It would be correct to say that the analysis showed that ~60 seats were lost as a result of voters rejecting leftist economy killing policies.


10 posted on 11/16/2010 2:42:48 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maddog55

Yeah, he sure did take the bile he heard from Momma, Gramps, and “Uncle Frank” to heart, didn’t he?


11 posted on 11/16/2010 2:43:38 AM PST by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DooDahhhh
I wonder why I never had any white guilt?

Because you never tried to hurt anyone just because you're white?

12 posted on 11/16/2010 2:44:08 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

That first quote seems imply that the voters are not that bright and can’t quite think it out for themselves.

Of course, if your experience of practical politics was mostly inside the Chicago Machine, that would be a fair impression.


13 posted on 11/16/2010 3:18:47 AM PST by siunevada (If we learn nothing from history, what's the point of having one? - Peggy Hill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook

The Republican establishment has run poor candidates for decades:

Richard Nixon - Expanded the Johnson welfare state plus gave us the EPA, OSHA, end of the gold standard, plus Watergate. Are we really better off for his opening to China? Permanently damaged the prestige of the office due to his criminal behavior.
Gerald Ford - Nice guy. Finished last.
Reagan - the one good selection of the past 30 years. Also not of the the “establishment”.
George H.W.Bush - “No new taxes”. Bailouts of S&L’s. “Free” trade with China. Roll back of the Reagan revolution. In later years friend of Bill Clinton.
Bob Dole — Nice old white guy. Creature of the Senate club and party establishment. No core beliefs. Finished last.
George W. Bush — Candidate of the establishment. Like his father, a moderate running as a “compassionate” conservative. Could not command a majority of the popular vote in his first run. Could not find his veto pen. Allowed federal debt to explode. Allowed Wall Street banks to run wild. Engaged the country in two undeclared wars without funding them and without a long term plan. Would not fight his enemies in the domestic political arena.
John McCain — An old white guy with no message and a big ego.


14 posted on 11/16/2010 3:50:38 AM PST by Soul of the South (When times are tough the tough get going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DooDahhhh

American Press can’t wait for January. They finally have something to blame for all the sob stories they have been witholding for two years. They are ramping up for the barrage.


15 posted on 11/16/2010 3:57:14 AM PST by screaminsunshine (Americanism vs Communism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

in working with many people with psychiatric and psychological problems. Odumbo is a psychopath plain and simple. Why is not there a psychological and psychiatric evaluation required for any and all politicians. Look at the nut case Alan Grayson. I question the sanity and emotional well being of Juan McCain too. when we had Ronald reagan as president everyone was saying he was nuts, when in fact he had the beginnings of alzheimers disease ( i am knocking Ronald reagan) I am just saying there needs to be a test and measurement to determine the emotional status of a politician. Odumbo is not taking the emotional stressors and strains of the job, and in fact he is no longer fit to be president, because of an emotional incapacity and he is a certifiable psychopath.


16 posted on 11/16/2010 4:31:18 AM PST by hondact200 ( Lincoln Freed the Enslaved. Obama Enslaves the Free. Obama is Americas Greatest Threat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hondact200

As I recall, the attack on Reagan wasn’t that he was nuts but that he did, in fact, have the beginnings of Alzheimer’s or “senility.” The stories about sleeping through meetings, lapsing into irrelevant Hollywood stories at inappropriate times, etc. were likely exaggerated. But the Dems knew how old RR was and they tried to take full, tasteless advantage of the situation.


17 posted on 11/16/2010 4:40:33 AM PST by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: screaminsunshine
Last night on Fox there was the first campaign ad for 2012. Funny as hell. It shows the principle Republican leadership and said,

"The people are sick and tired of politicians who fail to deliver on their campaign promises. Here it has been one week since the election and the Republicans have not delivered on an economic recovery!

Vote Democrat in 2012!"

18 posted on 11/16/2010 6:10:34 AM PST by Redleg Duke (We didn't limit out, but we nailed a bunch of RATS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke

Pathetic.


19 posted on 11/16/2010 6:13:07 AM PST by screaminsunshine (Americanism vs Communism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DooDahhhh

O but -but Butt don’t you understand it is “We th epeople” who are too stupid to understand the Democratic Party and their Presidential wanna be.Just look at how American fawned over and rushed to the siren song of Obama’s communistic dialectic of “Change”


20 posted on 11/16/2010 6:24:53 AM PST by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

21 posted on 11/16/2010 6:35:03 AM PST by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DooDahhhh

It is difficult to understand how the Dens could nominate someone so stupid.

You’re talking about the party here that’s been out there hawking affirmative action for four decades.


22 posted on 11/16/2010 6:44:02 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: screaminsunshine

Humor...lighten up!


23 posted on 11/16/2010 6:44:51 AM PST by Redleg Duke (We didn't limit out, but we nailed a bunch of RATS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson