Election Was Referendum On Democrat's Socialist Policies

The election yesterday was quite literally a referendum of the socialist policies that were implemented over the past 2 years by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.  They were most emphatically NOT "for" the GOP, but a rejection of TARP, "The America's Healthy Future Act of 2009, Cap & Trade, $1,000,000,000,000.00 "Stimulus Package" (but was really a payoff to Democratic constituencies), government take over of GM and the illegal award of that company to the UAW.  All the while the people were demanding action on the economy...a demand that fell on deaf ears in Washington.

They only editorial that I've seen that shows even a glimmer of understanding at the debacle the Democratic Party has had at the hands of voters was, now former Senator, Evan Bayh of Indianna, whose seat fell to the GOP.  Mr. Bayh had this to say in this mornings NY Times: 

Many of our problems were foreseeable. A public unhappy about the economy will take it out on the party in power, even if the problems began under previous management. What’s more, when one party controls everything — the House, the Senate, the White House — disgruntled voters have only one target for their ire. And the president’s party almost always loses seats in midterm elections...It is clear that Democrats over-interpreted our mandate. Talk of a “political realignment” and a “new progressive era” proved wishful thinking. Exit polls in 2008 showed that 22 percent of voters identified themselves as liberals, 32 percent as conservatives and 44 percent as moderates. An electorate that is 76 percent moderate to conservative was not crying out for a move to the left...We also overreached by focusing on health care rather than job creation during a severe recession. It was a noble aspiration, but $1 trillion in new spending and a major entitlement expansion are best attempted when the Treasury is flush and the economy strong, hardly our situation today.  [emhasis is mine, not the author's, Ed.]

 That's a pretty clear understanding of just how badly the leadership in Washington screwed up.  Mr. Bayh was part of that leadership and jumped ship rather than have to face his constituents back home.  But that does leave him in an excellent position to challenge Mr. Obama in 2012.

Maureen Dowd, writing in the same paper, had this take...and it's way off base. 

Even though it was predicted, it was still a shock to see voters humiliate a brilliant and spellbinding young president, who’d had such a Kennedy-like beginning, while electing a lot of conservative nuts and promoting this central-casting congressman as the face of the future: a Republican who had vowed in a written pledge to restore America to old-fashioned values, returning to a gauzy “Leave It to Beaver” image that never existed even on the set of “Leave It to Beaver.” Republicans outcommunicated a silver-tongued president who was supposed to be Ronald Reagan’s heir in the communications department.

The only people who believe this sort of thing are those who are shocked at how badly the election went yesterday.  They only talke to like minded people and live in a bubble world.  Those of us who are suffering in the real world see a President who can't give a speech without a teleprompter, and who when he goes off on a tangent, blunders endlessly.  He can give a good speech.  The biased media have been telling us for three and a half years just how brilliant Mr. Obama is...how Kennedyesk...yet he hasn't shown it to those of us who "cling to religion and guns"...he just reads a good speech.

Yet, Ruth Marcus, writing in the Washington Post, via Real Clear Politics, tells us that Mr. Obama's policies were right...

I'm disappointed, but I continue to believe that our actions were necessary and correct. The stimulus spending helped avert a second Great Depression. The health-care legislation offers the dual promise of extending coverage and controlling costs. Financial regulatory reform will protect the U.S. economy from private-sector recklessness.

...if they were right, why hasn't the economy begun to produce jobs?  Why is business sitting on roughly $5 trillion dollars?  Because they rightly see the policies that have been pursued by this administration as hurtful and wrongheaded.  On January 1st, we'll see the largest single tax hike in our history.  Basically EVERYONE's taxes will rise by 13%...because of the uncertaintainty that this administrations policies have produced, no businessman in his right mind is going to hire more people, or try and produce more goods...when they are uncertain of just what taxes they will have to  pay...how much more it will cost to hire, train, and insure (under government mandates) each new worker.

The Democratic Party was thumped at the polls yesterday because they ignored what America had to say since April 2009.  It's as simple as that.  Sugar coating it, and blaming the stupidity of voters will do nothing but put the time in the political wilderness that party must suffer for their own imbecilic desire to push through a socialist agenda.  On the other hand, the GOP must not mistake this as a mandate to continue their policies of 2002-2006 either, else they'll face the wrath of the voters in 2012...