If you receive this and you hate it and you don’t want to ever read it no matter what...that is fine; email me back and you will be deleted from my list (which is almost at the maximum anyway).

I attempt to post a new issue each Sunday by 2 or 3 pm central standard time (I sometimes fail at this attempt).

I try to include factual material only, along with my opinions (it should be clear which is which). I make an attempt to include as much of this week’s news as I possibly can. The first set of columns are intentionally designed for a quick read.

I do not accept any advertising nor do I charge for this publication. I write this principally to blow off steam in a nation where its people seemed have collectively lost their minds.

And if you are a believer in Jesus Christ, always remember: We do not struggle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places (Eph. 6:12).

An historic election took place this past week. 47 Republicans are in the Senate, and 51 Democrats and 2 Independents (who caucus with the Democrats). Republicans had a net gain of 64 seats in the House, which represents the highest turnover in a midterm election since 1938 (there are 8 or 10 undecided races). Although this represents a significant Republican majority, there was a larger overall Democratic majority in 2008. Republicans now hold a majority of governorships as well (which will be important when it comes to redistricting).

Washington State actually voted down a state income tax (designed, of course, to be applied just to the very rich). Even the voters of liberal Washington understand that is how such initiatives are passed to begin with. It is my understanding the a ⅔^rds majority will now be required there the raise taxes (something which California repealed awhile back).

Republican Allen West hangs up on his opponent, who calls him to congratulate him. If you knew what his opponent did, which included releasing West’s SS# and his wife’s work ID#, and got West’s family personally involved by intimidating them, it makes sense.

Liberal California elected lifetime politician Democrat Jerry Brown as their governor and Democrat Barbara Boxer for her 4^th term as Senator. However, they voted against the pot legalization initiative.

Military ballots from Illinois, New York, and some counties in Mississippi were not mailed out in time. I have heard reports that this was also true for Delaware and Colorado, although I have not independently confirmed that. in past elections, as much as 40% of absentee ballots have been thrown out.

Since San Francisco has solved most of its major problems, it has gone after the Happy Meal. From hereon in, there will be calorie and fat content restrictions in order for any prepared food company to include a toy with a child’s meal.

President George W. Bush releases his book, Decision Points next week and, so far in all interviews, has refrained from criticizing the current president or making any partisan remarks.

Keith Olbermann, who helped cover the election results on Tuesday night, has been suspended because he donated to 3 different Democrats running this midterm election.

Speaking of being fired, Nancy Pelosi wants to run for minority head of the House. Republican headquarters, which sponsored a bus driving around the country with a Fire Pelosi sign on it, now has the sign, Hire Pelosi.

There is video of two reporters plotting to do a negative story on Joe Miller (TEA party candidate in Alaska) and there is video of a federal employee telling his workers that they ought to vote for Murkowski (Miller’s opponent) and he had cards to hand them with her name spelled correctly (she was a write-in candidate).

President Obama, in August: Republicans “...have not come up with a single solitary, new idea to address the challenges of the American people. They don't have a single idea that's different from George Bush's ideas ... not one.”

Obama in August: “They haven't come out with a single solitary idea that is different from policies that held sway for eight years before Democrats took over. Not a single policy difference that's discernable from [George W.] Bush. Not one.”

President Obama: “And so my job is to make sure that I'm looking at all ideas that are on the table. When it comes to job creation, if Republicans have good ideas for job growth that can drive down the unemployment rate, and we haven't thought of them, we haven't looked at them but we think they have a chance of working, we want to try some.”

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs: "The goal is to seek their input. He wants to hear their ideas. If there are good ideas -- and I think he assumes there will be -- we will look at those ideas."

President Obama in November: “I'm doing a whole lot of reflecting, and I think there will be areas where we will have to do a better job. With all that stuff coming at folks fast and furious -- a recovery package, what we had to do with respect to the banks, what we had to do with respect to the auto companies -- I think people started looking at all of this and it felt as if government was getting much more intrusive into people's lives than they were accustomed to.”

President Obama: “I think that what happened over the course of two years was that we had to take a series of big, emergency steps quickly and most of them in the first six months of my Administration. Each of them had a big price tag. You've got intervention in the banks. You've got the auto bailout. You've got a stimulus package. Each one with a lot of zeroes behind it. And people looked at that and they said, ‘Boy, this feels as if there's a huge expansion of government.’ ”

Kroft: “Well, it was a huge expansion of government.”

Obama: “What I didn't effectively, I think, drive home, because we were in such a rush to get this stuff done, is that we were taking these steps not because of some theory that we wanted to expand government. It was because we had an emergency situation and we wanted to make sure the economy didn't go off a cliff. ”

President Obama: "At a time when we are going to ask folks across the board to make such difficult sacrifices, I don't see how we can afford to borrow an additional $700 billion from other countries to make all the Bush tax cuts permanent, even for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans." He has never talked about the so-called cost of the middle-class tax cuts, which are far more than $700 billion.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “We're talking about addressing the disparity of income where the wealthy people continue to get wealthier and some other people are falling out of the middle class when we want to bring many more people into the middle class. But that disparity is not just about wages alone, that disparity is about ownership and equity. It's all about fairness in our country."

PBS’s Mark Shield: “But on the subject of Sarah Palin in 2012, one of the unspoken problems that she does have is her quitting as governor midway through her first term. It is like Ted Kennedy's Chappaquiddick” For those of you who are too young to know this, Ted Kennedy drove off a bridge into the Chappaquiddick with Mary Jo Kopechne in the car with him. Kennedy survived and walked away from the accident and left the scene (he later claimed to have gone into the water several times to save Kopechne). Miss Kopechne died in this accident, which was discovered the next day. Kennedy did not report the accident. He was given a suspended sentence.

Michelle Norris: Let's begin with the House and the question of a shift of power there. In one of your recent reports, you posed this question: Will the House losses be bad or horrendous? I think you used the word bloodbath in that report. What's the answer? How bad will it be?

Rothenberg: There will be a bloodbath, I believe. It all depends on your definitions of this. But we're talking 1994 levels or larger. 1994 Democrats lost 52 seats in the House. I think we're talking something above 45. Probably above 50, possibly above 55. So these are big numbers.

Norris: Now, I ask a question, how bad would it be? That's of course from the perspective of a Democrat.

Bill Maher: “The most popular name in the United Kingdom—Great Britain—...for babies this year was Mohammed. Am I a racist to feel alarmed by that (because I am)?”

FEMALE REPORTER: That's up to you because you're the expert, but that's what I would do.I'd wait until you see who showed up because that indicates we already know something.

[Laughter]

[INAUDIBLE]

FEMALE REPORTER: Child molesters.

MALE REPORTER: Oh yeah. can you repeat Joe Miller's.uh. list of people, campaign workers, which one's the molester?

[INAUDIBLE]

FEMALE VOICE: We know that out of all the people that will show up tonight, at least one of them will be a registered sex offender.

[Laughter]

MALE REPORTER: You have to find that one person.

[INAUDIBLE]

FEMALE REPORTER: And the one thing we can do is ..we won't know..we won't know but if there is any sort of chaos whatsoever we can put out a twitter/facebook alert: saying what the. `Hey Joe Miller punched at rally.'

FEMALE REPORTER: Kinda like Rand Paul.I like that.

[Laughter]

FEMALE REPORTER: That's a good one.

Sarah Palin on the news media in Alaska (to Chris Wallace): 'Those are corrupt bastards, Chris'

Interviewer: “Who do you think is the worst offender in he Nazi, commie, socialist, fascist, sort of comparison, parade.”

Restore Sanity placard carrier: “The answer is Glenn Beck.”

Restore Sanity female placard (Fear Sells; Reason Serves) carrier: “You don’t see reasonable people putting Hitler mustaches on people’s faces.”

Interviewer: “So there were no people with Bush’s Hitler signs like there are Obama is Hitler.”

Female: “I see what you’re saying...if there should have been a Hitler sign on somebody, it probably should have been him—I hate to say it.”

For just one moment there, you think this woman is going to get it...but then she doesn’t make the connection. Obama is Hitler = insane; Bush is Hitler = more reasonable.

Interviewer: What would be a conservative position that you would consider or a non-liberal position that you would consider reasonable?”

Guy 1 (carrying a placard that reads Deliver us from Evil with a picture of Glenn Beck on it): “Ummmm.”

Guy 2: “That’s a tough one.”

Guy 1: “That would take some thought, man. That would take some thought.”

Guy 2: [inaudible, but agreeing with Guy 1]

Some other guy responding to an off-camera question (his friend carries an “I hate Illinois Nazis” sign): “We hope to get the point out that it’s not all about getting your point out.”

Interviewer: “I think you’re doing that splendidly.”

Guy 2: “If you’re that bad in debt, I mean, if I were that bad in debt, the only way I’d get myself out of debt is to make more debt first and then try to figure myself out.”

Interviewer: “That makes absolutely no sense, but I think it’s awesome.”

President Bush (speaking of the TEA party movement): “Here's what I see. I see democracy working. People are expressing a level of frustration or concern and they're getting involved in the process. And the truth of the matter is, democracy works in America.”

John Boehner: “What we need to do is listen to the American people. They sent a very loud message last night. It's pretty clear the American people want a smaller, lost costly and more accountable government here in Washington, D.C. And if the American people see us doing things that they're telling us to do, I think we'll do just fine.”

P.J. O’Rourke: “This is not an election but a restraining order on Obama.”

After receiving 2 phone calls from the president on the same day, Mitch McConnell said, “I think the President is my new best friend.”

Ben Stein: “The American people are not rabble; the TEA party is not rabble.”

Ben Stein: “It’s not free money, Senators and Congressmen...it belonged to someone.”

Jodi Miller: “A new study by the Congressional Budget Office will actually drive people out of the workforce, but we here at newsbusted don’t expect Democrats to be upset, unless it affects illegal aliens.”

Dick Army: “The Republican party, bless their hearts, finally learned to listen to the people, rather than join with the democrats and tell America what they’re going to get, like it or not.”

Senator Lindsay Graham at the Halifax International Security Forum: “My view of military force would be not to just neutralize their nuclear program, which are probably dispersed and hardened, but to sink their navy, destroy their air force and deliver a decisive blow to the Revolutionary Guard. In other words, neuter that regime.”

An unnamed Indian official, upon hearing that President Obama will use a teleprompter in India: “We thought Obama is a trained orator and skilled in the art of mass address with his continuous eye contact.”

This is why Marco Rubio is feared by Democrats; acceptance speech (preceded by a commercial); and his GOP address:

Glenn Beck’s Friday show (parts 1–111); like many of his shows, they often peter off in much of the final 10 minutes. In any case, this is one of his scarier shows.

Chris Wallace interviews Sarah Palin (unfortunately, it seems to start part way through, when Palin explains why she supported Christine O’Donnell):

One of the best political commercials, which played in Texas (it may help you non-Texans understand us Texans):

Chris Matthews interviews Michelle Bachmann and asks her if she is hypnotized. Matthews, Olbermann and the MSNBC gal discuss this afterwards. They also imply that they are not in the tank for Obama.

Obama needs something like the Oklahoma bombing in order to reconnect with the people (this opinion may help to explain why fewer and fewer people are tuning in to MSNBC for the political pundantry):

I have posted this before, but people are still discovering this video—The Government Can:

Another vid people are beginning to discover: “Here’s to you, Mr. Jefferson” a song by Mike Church (you will enjoy this):

In case you want to know what sanity looks like, a Reason TV interviewer walked through the crowd at the Restore Sanity rally asking questions (this is fun; you will love it):

1) Here is a great illustration of how government manages to screw everything up: if you have been a faithful reader, I have drawn a straight line from governmental interference with the housing market to the current downturn which we are presently experiencing. The purpose of governmental interference was to increase the number of people who could enjoy the American dream of home ownership. Although some of the legislation for this has been festering since 1975, it got a boost by a bill signed by Bill Clinton near the end of his term, which kicked increased home ownership into high gear around the year 2000. What is the end result? Home ownership today is the lowest that it has been in a decade. So, government, by interfering with the housing and mortgage markets in order to increase home ownership has effectively decreased home ownership.

4) Do not pass cap and tax legislation, which will raise energy taxes for everyone.

3) In order for a revolution to break out in this country, there needs to be a very large and easily mobilized disenfranchised group of people. Do you recall the size of the demonstrations against Arizona’s immigration law?

4) Divided government and gridlock are a good thing; not bad. When government leaders cannot agree, that means they are not spending tax dollars. As soon as they agree on something, they begin to spend our money.

5) An early test for Republicans is the potential appointment of Jerry Lewis (R–CA) as head of the appropriations committee. Lewis is known for his liberal use of earmarks. He is logically in line for this post; and his appointment to this post would be a bad signal (unless he comes out in a public address, promising to mend his evil ways).

6) It is legal to abort a baby; but a criminal offense to harm an eagle’s egg; marijuana is okay and ought to be legalized, but, government needs to step in and determine what ought to be in a happy meal and what kinds of meals are allowed to have toys in them.

7) We either quit spending like fools, or China is going to stop lending us money, and that could happen suddenly.

8) Fox News beat all of the networks and all of the cable news channels when it came to election coverage. I watched much of the coverage, and it was fair, honest reporting, with a myriad of opinions offered from all sides. The anchors showed no discernable bias. By the way, I have watched Shepherd Smith’s evening newscast many times, and I still have no idea what political stripe he is.

9) We need to set standards for what sorts of companies can unionize. There was a reason for unionization decades ago; those reasons are long gone. If a company has a poor safety record, pays, say, 40% less than similar companies for similar work, or its employees have a higher death or hospitalization record than normal, then employees there can choose to unionize. Secondly, no public employees should be allowed to unionize. Public officials involved in negotiations often are beholden to the unions for votes and for support; therefore, instead of acting in he interest of the people and making fiscally sound decisions (assuming a politician can do such a thing). Collective bargaining needs to be banned, for exactly the same reason.

10) We have to do something about state and county contracts with public employees; it is their salaries, benefits and healthcare—and particularly their retirement—which is breaking the financial back of the states.

11) Home ownership traps people. Let’s sya you are in a home in California, with a $300,000 mortgage on your home, which is now worth $190,000, you aren’t going anywhere, even if there is a good job market in a nearby state.

12) Interesting notion: one of the financial business shows on FoxNews suggested putting colleges on the line for college loans.

13) 8% of Californians think that their state is going in the wrong direction, and yet, they continue to vote in Democrats to represent them. Now, what is that definition of insanity again?

14) I have noticed that Obama supporters, for the most part, make every effort to support him verbally for nearly all that he does. I do not feel that I need to do this about anyone in my party. I agree with the philosophy behind the Republican party, but when even my favorite Republicans make a mistake, I do not see myself as an apologist for them.

(3 unions, a representative of small business, and a conservative organization; it is unlikely that the members of these unions had any say in spending their union dues in this way).

9000 retired state employees in California make over $100,000/year (and have some form of medical insurance as well, paid in part or in all). This is the state that just elected Jerry Brown as their governor.

GM gets a $45 billion tax break. So, tax cuts are now a good thing for business?

The Fed has instituted its own stimulus plan, injecting $600 billion into the market. President Obama can keep his promises about not raising your taxes, but inflation is the hidden tax. Already, food prices are up around 10% or so over the past year.

56% think the government does too much (in my opinion, that percentage is much too small).

Right before the election, I was listening to NPR, and the female newscaster, Michelle Norris, said twice how the upcoming election was going to be bad. The second time, she caught herself, and added, “I mean from the perspective of the Democrats, it’s going to be bad.” (Not an exact quote, but close).

Jon Stewart complained about the “24-hour news cycle” at his Restore Sanity and Adrianna Huffington has several times spoken of a “constant barrage of information.” In the way that both spoke of these things is, there problem is, there is too much news, there is too much information, and the implication is, if we could reduce the amount of news, people would be able to think more clearly (and agree with them).

We have an historic election occur, one in which the public is probably more engaged in than in any previous midterm. When Obama won his election, SNL did a skit on Republican heads gathering, sounding stupid, and wondering what went wrong. Yet here, knowing an historic election was coming up, that there would be great public attention given to it, and that people would be reasonably informed, SNL decides to take this week off—the put on a rerun.

I think that they are simply incapable of writing good satire when it comes to the Democrats (apart from NY Governor David Paterson, who, by the way, went on SNL a few weeks ago and parodied himself—and bully for him, for doing this).

SNL knew the polls well in advance, knew the mood of the country, and apparently decided not having a show is the best way to deal with an election where their candidates would lose.

Obama has to go to India (and the rest of the Orient), and, if he is not too ideological, this is going to open up some markets for the United States. This will probably be seen as Obama’s best move as a president by both Democrats and Republicans. He is traveling with 250 business executives (that is a good thing). Although this is necessary, signing a free trade agreement with South Korea and Columbia will be even better for our economy.

Political foes, Mark Kirk and Alexi Giannoulias meet for a post-election beer summit.

This is pretty easy. Unlike Chris Christie and Haley Barbour, governors who are cutting state budgets significantly, Jerry Brown will continue to increase California’s budget and debt, imposing few, if any restraints, on the out-of-control public unions (please prove me wrong, Governor Brown!). In any case, there will be no federal bailouts for California, because Republicans control the purse strings for federal spending.

Republicans in the House will pass the free trade agreement between the United States and South Korea and Columbia. If President Obama signs this, expect a 1% or so movement in the unemployment rate.

Media: 2008 voters informed, educated and inspired; 2010 voters angry, hormonal and anti-incumbent

Our public school system is no longer working. Despite the dramatically increased spending, our drop out rate is increasing, our literacy rate is decreasing, and fewer and fewer high school graduates are able to begin college without taking remedial courses.

(1) We need to lower graduation requirements (I have spoken about this before). 30–40% of high school students go on to graduate from college; yet, almost every state has increased the number of required courses, and has continued to raise the level of the courses required. One end result is, all of these college preparation courses which are now required must be watered down in order to allow lower-level students to pass them. Therefore, college-bound students are not really prepared for college because these courses are dumbed-down. The second end result is, larger and larger numbers of students drop out of high school because what is being taught is not preparing them for anything.

I don’t care how this is done. If high schools want to offer several types of graduate degrees, that is fine with me (e.g., a college-prep degree, a high school standards degree, a basic standards degree; and there can be specializations thrown in as well).

(2) We then need to move to a private system of education. This cannot be done overnight. Here is the way to ease it in (on the state level). Year one, offer a $1000 credit to go from the state government toward any private school a child may attend. This would reduce public school enrollment slightly, and there would be $10,000–16,000 less being paid out to a public school for each student getting this $1000 savings. This would save millions of dollars for each state, and reduce the number of public employees. In year two, offer a $2000 credit for all private school attendees. More families would send their children to a private school. Year, three, $3000, etc., on up to a $7000–8000 credit (which still represents a net savings to the state government).

These private schools ought to be allowed areas of specialization (e.g., teaching building skills, refrigeration, car mechanics, plumbing, etc.).

Partnership between schools and communities would be encouraged, which would include unpaid or lowly paid intern positions at various businesses doing scut work. High school credit would be given for this work. This would literally save some businesses from going under.

At some point in time, students would be given the freedom to choose to go to whatever public school they choose to go to. This would be done as a lottery system, each school offering, say, 100 positions the first year; 200 positions the next year (this would be for high schools; a lower number of openings allowed for grammar schools).

Obviously, this would open up competition between schools. This would allow various schools to specialize and offer a variety of alternate programs. One school might emphasize sports, another the arts, another college preparatory courses.

Also, just as important: a school must be allowed to expel any student for any reason, and not be required to provide some kind of alternative program for this student.

At one time, our school was able to do this (when I was a teacher), and the results were phenomenal. This is because the parent immediately became involved. Whether bad Johnny had a good or bad parent, that parent would spend 30–45 minutes every single day driving bad Johnny to a new school, and, through much of this trip, conversing with bad Johnny about what an imposition this all is. Quite obviously, some of these students would drop out, but they do that already as it is. This way, they have alternatives, which is not necessarily going to an alternative school for problem kids.

As a teacher who taught in good time and bad, all it takes is for a classroom with 1 or 2 or 3 bad Johnny’s and learning stops for almost every student in the classroom.

(3) Idea #3 is unrelated to education. Since Obamacare is on its way out, all health insurance companies need to identify what kind of policy they are offering right up front, on page 1. Prior to going to see any movie, we know what its rating is and why is was so rated. We ought to know the same thing about a health insurance policy:

Percentage policy (insured will pay a specific percentage of his healthcare costs)

Gold Plans = low deductibles, low co-pay, specified amounts for all medical procedures.

Limited coverage plan = at some point ($250,000, for instance) the insured must pick up the cost.

Extended coverage plans = includes plastic surgery, sex-change operations, counseling, drug/alcohol abuse programs, etc. Just as we pay additional coverage for our auto insurance, these ought to cost extra as well.

Healthy lifestyle reduction allowance = person must submit to a health screening every year, and tested; passing the test reduces the health coverage costs for the next year.

In other words, I should be able to look at the brochure of a health plan and know, on page one, what kind of health insurance this is.

None of these ideas will cost any money. In fact, reduced graduation requirements will mean fewer classes needed and fewer teachers, resulting in a lower cost. The private school credit would save states money. The rating/designation system for insurance companies could be worked out between a number of insurance companies (as the movie ratings were worked out).

No cost or money is saved; little or no government involvement. These are the kinds of solutions we need going forward.

First of all, the election results were great. This will probably be the greatest shift in power that I will ever witness in my lifetime. Furthermore, TEA party adherents have discovered the primaries, where we are able to make some of our greatest inroads.

Also, you will notice in the 8 or 9 places where the vote count is so close, there are always additional ballots discovered, and most of them, by far, are voting for Democrats. How does this happen? I have heard it suggested that, since the 2000 election, Democrats have figured out, the most powerful person in close elections is the state secretary of state, and that they have focused on these races.

However, like most conservatives, I wanted to see Harry Reid put out of office, and to see Christine O’Donnell, Carly Fiorina and Linda McMahon as 3 new Senators.

Here is what I think happened: TEA party candidates got elected in the primaries when they weren’t supposed to, and the Republican party did not step in to help the winners of the primaries as they ought to have. It is as if they are saying, “Sorry, people, but you voted the wrong way, and now we are going to show you that your candidates cannot get elected.”

Most of these people, although they had limited experience in government (some of them had no experience in government), they were easily led astray in public interviews. They did not realize just how clever the media is, when it comes to touting some unimportant issue (like someone saying she knew some Goth-types in her teens and 20's, or someone else getting caught up in her accidental hiring of an illegal). We even know that most, if not all, of these attacks are intentional, hoping to focus the attention on some minor defect of the candidate, in order to get them off message. Face it; some voters are stupid, and if you convince them that a conservative has some minor flaw in his past life, that flaw can be exploited, even if it really has absolutely no bearing on the election (Senators and Congressmen are voters, for the most part; and the key is, do you agree with how they will vote?). All this other stuff is meaningless.

Republican operatives should have descended upon these TEA party candidates and said, “The media will continually try to get you off message; in debates and in reporting. You have to be able to pivot back to your point-of-view.” There needed to be careful sessions with the candidates to teach them how to deal with the solidly liberal alphabet media. This is coaching and it is done all of the time, on both sides. It was not done for these TEA party candidates, and that was deplorable about the Republican party.

They needed some guidance. Christine O’Donnell should have gone of FoxNews before the election and not after. Carl Paladino needed a lot of schooling. Fiorina, Whitman and McMahon all needed to have answers for the accusation that, “They are buying the election.” It is used every time against any person who spends his own money in an election.

There are a lot of conservative resources out there, in terms of talent. This can be found among Black and Hispanic and Asian conservatives (the Raging Elephants, for instance). PJ TV has great talent, as does Reason TV. Joe Dan Media (I forget his real last name) has put out some outstanding videos. Our party needs to turn to some of the resources, which are younger, hipper, and, quite frankly, more pure in their conservatism. Furthermore, unlike Hollywood talent, where actors and actresses can read their lines well, and repeat liberal slogans, conservative talent actually knows what they believe and why they believe it.

Finally, the ads of our candidates needed to be smarter, not simply ubiquitous. Again, this would require Republican party assistance. For about a dozen candidates, there should have been Republican operatives made available to them, to counsel and guide them. When the candidate disagrees, then get in a focus group, and see the response.

Personally, I liked some of the ads they ran, like O’Donnell’s “I’m not a watch” ad. However, this tested poorly, and it should have been tested before being put out there. As I said earlier, I would have loved for O’Donnell to wiggle her nose and disappear at the end of the ad, but that may not have worked with the public.

Some members of the Republican party got on board, recognizing that this was the will of the people (Republican head, Michael Steele. Fpr instance). However, although Steele is a great face for our party, he occasionally makes some grave errors, and he needs a nuts and bolts common-sense guy, like Karl Rove, guiding him from the sidelines.

That we did not do better as conservatives in this election is almost completely the fault of the Republican party bosses, who resent TEA party activists, who have stepped in and upset their apple cart.

We conservatives enjoyed a great election; it should have been better. 2010 was a gimme election, however, 2012 will not be.

Congratulations to all the tea party-backed candidates who overcame a determined, partisan opposition to win their elections. The next campaign begins today. Because you must now overcome determined party insiders if this nation is going to be spared from fiscal disaster.

Many of the people who will be welcoming the new class of Senate conservatives to Washington never wanted you here in the first place. The establishment is much more likely to try to buy off your votes than to buy into your limited-government philosophy. Consider what former GOP senator-turned-lobbyist Trent Lott told the Washington Post earlier this year: "As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them."

Don't let them. Co-option is coercion. Washington operates on a favor-based economy and for every earmark, committee assignment or fancy title that's given, payback is expected in return. The chits come due when the roll call votes begin. This is how big-spending bills that everyone always decries in public always manage to pass with just enough votes.

But someone can't be bribed if they aren't for sale. Here is some humble advice on how to recognize and refuse such offers.

First, don't request earmarks. If you do, you'll vote for legislation based on what's in it for your state, not what's best for the country. You will lose the ability to criticize wasteful spending. And, if you dare to oppose other pork-barrel projects, the earmarkers will retaliate against you.

In 2005, Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) offered a measure to kill funding for the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere." Before the vote, Sen. Patty Murray (D., Wash.), an appropriator, issued a warning on the Senate floor.

"If we start cutting funding for individual projects, your project may be next," she said. "When Members come down to the floor to vote on this amendment, they need to know if they support stripping out this project, Senator Bond [a Republican appropriator] and I are likely to be taking a long, serious look at their projects to determine whether they should be preserved during our upcoming conference negotiations."

The threat worked. Hardly anyone wanted to risk losing earmarks. The Senate voted 82-15 to protect funding for the Bridge to Nowhere.

Second, hire conservative staff. The old saying "personnel is policy" is true. You don't need Beltway strategists and consultants running your office. Find people who share your values and believe in advancing the same policy reforms. Staff who are driven by conservative instincts can protect you from unwanted, outside influences when the pressure is on.

Third, beware of committees. Committee assignments can be used as bait to make senators compromise on other matters. Rookie senators are often told they must be a member of a particular committee to advance a certain piece of legislation. This may be true in the House, but a senator can legislate on any matter from the Senate floor.

Fourth, don't seek titles. The word "Senator" before your name carries plenty of clout. All senators have the power to object to bad legislation, speak on the floor and offer amendments, regardless of how they are ranked in party hierarchy.

Lastly, don't let your re-election become more important than your job. You've campaigned long and hard for the opportunity to go to Washington and restore freedom in America. People will try to convince you to moderate conservative positions and break campaign promises, all in the name of winning the next race. Resist the temptation to do so. There are worse things than losing an election-like breaking your word to voters.

At your swearing-in ceremony, you will, as all senators do, take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution." Most will fail to keep their oath. Doing these five things will help you maintain a focus on national priorities and be one who does.

Congress will never fix entitlements, simplify the tax code or balance the budget as long as members are more concerned with their own narrow, parochial interests. Time spent securing earmarks and serving personal ambitions is time that should be spent working on big-picture reforms.

When you are in Washington, remember what the voters back home want-less government and more freedom. Millions of people are out of work, the government is going bankrupt and the country is trillions in debt. Americans have watched in disgust as billions of their tax dollars have been wasted on failed jobs plans, bailouts and takeovers. It's up to us to stop the spending spree and make sure we have a government that benefits America instead of being a burden to it.

Tea party Republicans were elected to go to Washington and save the country-not be co-opted by the club. So put on your boxing gloves. The fight begins today.

Soon-to-be Speaker John Boehner (Ohio) is being pressed by taxpayer groups to slash the salaries of House lawmakers.

Cutting member pay would show voters the new GOP majority in the House is going to lead by example in their efforts to rein in spending and start with their own wallets, say officials with three prominent taxpayer advocacy groups in Washington, D.C.

"There has to be a visible gesture that people can immediately relate to," said Pete Sepp, the executive vice president of the conservative National Taxpayers Union.

"And cutting pay would be one of the best symbols, because unlike virtually anything else the federal government does, when Congress spends money on its own salaries and benefits, people can make a direct comparison to their own situation," Sepp said.

The last three House Speakers swept into the leadership role with the issuance of symbolic gestures, which typically correlates to the campaign platform that delivered them to power, said Sarah Binder, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution.

"[The symbolic moves] create images that build the party's reputation and say, `This is what Republican rule means and these are things we stand for,'" Binder said. "These are symbolic things that a Speaker would want to do to set a tone or a message.

Boehner is slated to receive a $30,100 pay increase next year when he becomes Speaker of the House. His annual salary will be $223,500. The base pay for House and Senate lawmakers is $174,000, while majority and minority leaders each make $193,400 per year.

Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner, said that no decision has been made to slash members' salaries, but pointed to the promises the GOP made in its "Pledge to America" in September.

"The Pledge to America calls for cutting Congress' budget, but no specific decisions have been made about how that will be done at this time," said Steel.

Republicans gained about five dozen House seats Tuesday largely by running campaigns based on promises to scale back government spending, reform how the House operates and increase jobs for Americans.

"It's pretty clear that the American people want a smaller, less costly, more accountable government here in Washington," Boehner said to reporters the day after Election Day.

Tom Schatz, the president of Citizens Against Government Waste, said that by cutting the paychecks of members, Boehner would send the right message to voters.

Schatz explained that Republican lawmakers coming into Congress for their first term would likely support the move.

"[A salary cut] would at least indicate some greater level of understanding of the suffering that people have been subject to during this recession," said Schatz.

"A lot of the new members, in particular, are coming in with a mindset of cutting spending wherever they think it's reasonable, and I think starting with their own pay makes sense. They haven't had that salary in the first place, so members on both sides would just consider it the starting point."

Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, said he supports members taking a pay cut, but when he spoke with Republican leadership aides recently, they were not quick to jump on the idea. However, Norquist said, Republicans might want to unveil the pay cut in a ceremonial fashion and not have their limelight stolen.

"I heard the rumor - and this may be true, but they just aren't `fessing up to it," he said.

Norquist added, "I talked to people around Boehner and they didn't say, `No we'd never do that.' They just weren't saying `Yes.' And if I were them, I would not tell me if they had some plan to do it because they want to announce it themselves."

Members of Congress froze their salary in 2011 and did so this year as well, as they have on six other occasions since the law requiring lawmakers to vote against a cost-of-living increase was created in 1990, according to the Congressional Research Service. But the last time members of Congress took an actual pay cut was in the midst of the Great Depression on April 1, 1933.

And with more than 450,000 Americans experiencing joblessness, according to the Department of Labor's latest numbers released Thursday, voters are going to be looking to Republicans for signals and symbols of actual change on Capitol Hill, Sepp said.

"The Republicans have set the bar very high for their re-ascendency to power, and that means they need to come up with a direct symbol to the public that's just as strong," said Sepp.

"When you think back to the last time when Congressional salaries were reduced in the early 1930s, the parallel becomes even stronger," said Sepp. "If you wanted to make a big splash and say, `We're doing something that Congress hasn't contemplated since the days of the Great Depression.' Well, this is the exact thing to do."

Sepp said it would be "political suicide" to oppose a pay cut if proposed by Boehner, who as Speaker could easily bring a measure outlining the salary slash to the floor. And Democrats would be compelled to support such a bill, he said, especially because Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Ariz.) sponsored a measure in this Congress that would have cut member salary by 5 percent. The legislation received 34, mostly Democratic, co-sponsors.

After taking back the House for Democrats, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) - a staunch environmental advocate from San Francisco - banned smoking from the Capitol halls and established the chamber's environmentally friendly "Green the Capitol" program, which included compostable cutlery and a carbon offset program.

And former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), following the wave election of 1994 in which the GOP took the House using the campaign platform of smaller government, pushed to privatize the chamber's internal services, like the barbershop, and do away with its ice delivery service in an effort to show voters that Republicans wanted to shrink the role of government and its egregiousness.

Similarly, former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) was known in the House as a behind-the-scenes dealmaker and a former wrestling coach who was a high school teacher. As his first move as the leader of the chamber in 1999, Hastert responded to the increasingly vocal concerns of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle and eased a ban on gifts they were allowed to receive. Since Republicans took over in 1995, members had not been allowed to accept even minor gifts such as t-shirts. Under Hastert's change, lawmakers could receive gifts of up to $100 from one person or company in a year.

'The people have spoken, the bastards." That would be how Democrats in the White House and on Capitol Hill are feeling. The last two years of their leadership have been rebuffed. The question for the Democratic Party: Was it worth it? Was it worth following the president and the speaker in their mad pursuit of liberal legislation that the country would not, could not, like? And what will you do now? Which path will you take?

The Republicans saw their own establishment firmly, sharply put down. The question for them: What will you do to show yourselves worthy of the bounty?

Two small points on the election's atmospherics that carry implications for the future. The first is that negative ads became boring, unpersuasive. Forty years ago they were new, exciting in a sort of prurient way. Now voters take for granted that politicians are no good, and such ads are just more polluted water going over the waterfall. The biggest long-term loser: liberalism. If all pols are sleazoid crooks, then why would people want to give them more governmental power to order our lives? The implicit message of two generations of negative ads: Vote conservative, limit the reach of the thieves.

The second, not much noticed, is that all candidates must assume now that they are being taped, wherever they are, including private conversations. Sharron Angle was taped in a private meeting with a potential supporter, who leaked it to the press, to her embarrassment. The taper/leaker was a sleaze and a weasel-a sleazel-but candidates can no longer ever assume they are speaking in confidence; they have to assume even aides and supporters are wired. (Go reread "Game Change" and wonder if some of the conversations reported there were taped.) The zone of privacy just got smaller, and the possibility of blackmail, a perennial unseen force in politics, wider. Prediction: This fact will, at some point in 2012, cause an uproar.

On to the aftermath of the election. On Wednesday, President Obama gave a news conference to share his thoughts. Viewers would have found it disappointing if there had been any viewers. The president is speaking, in effect, to an empty room. From my notes five minutes in: "This wet blanket, this occupier of the least interesting corner of the faculty lounge, this joy-free zone, this inert gas." By the end I was certain he will never produce a successful stimulus because he is a human depression.

Actually I thought the worst thing you can say about a president: He won't even make a good former president.

His detachment is so great, it is even from himself. As he spoke, he seemed to be narrating from a remove. It was like hearing the audiobook of Volume I of his presidential memoirs. "Obama was frustrated. He honestly didn't understand what the country was doing. It was as if they had compulsive hand-washing disorder. In '08 they washed off Bush. Now they're washing off Obama. There he is, swirling down the drain! It's all too dramatic, too polar. The morning after the election it occurred to him: maybe he should take strong action. Maybe he should fire America! They did well in 2008, but since then they've been slipping. They weren't giving him the followership he needed. But that wouldn't work, they'd only complain. He had to keep his cool. His aides kept telling him, 'Show humility.' But they never told him what humility looked like. What was he supposed to do, burst into tears and say hit me? Not knowing how to feel humility or therefore show humility he decided to announce humility: He found the election 'humbling,' he said."

What Democrats have to learn from this election: Cut loose from that. Join with Republicans where you can, create legislation together, send the bill to the White House, see what happens. Even as the Republicans have succeeded in getting out from under George W. Bush, this is your chance to get out from under Mr. Obama, and possibly prosper in 2012 whatever happens to him.

What the tea party, by which I mean members and sympathizers, has to learn from 2010 is this: Not only the message is important but the messenger.

Even in a perfect political environment, those candidates who were conservative but seemed strange, or unprofessional, or not fully qualified, or like empty bags skittering along the street, did not fare well. The tea party provided the fire and passion of the election, and helped produce major wins-Marco Rubio by 19 points! But in the future the tea party is going to have to ask itself: Is this candidate electable? Will he pass muster with those who may not themselves be deeply political but who hold certain expectations as to the dignity and stature required of those who hold office?

This is the key question the tea party will face in 2012. And it will be hard to answer it, because the tea party doesn't have leaders or conventions, so the answer will have to bubble up from a thousand groups, from 10,000 leaders.

Electable doesn't mean not-conservative. Electable means mature, accomplished, stable-and able to persuade.

Conservatives talked a lot about Ronald Reagan this year, but they have to take him more to heart, because his example here is a guide. All this seemed lost last week on Sarah Palin, who called him, on Fox, "an actor." She was defending her form of political celebrity-reality show, "Dancing With the Stars," etc. This is how she did it: "Wasn't Ronald Reagan an actor? Wasn't he in 'Bedtime for Bonzo,' Bozo, something? Ronald Reagan was an actor."

Excuse me, but this was ignorant even for Mrs. Palin. Reagan people quietly flipped their lids, but I'll voice their consternation to make a larger point. Ronald Reagan was an artist who willed himself into leadership as president of a major American labor union (Screen Actors Guild, seven terms, 1947-59.) He led that union successfully through major upheavals (the Hollywood communist wars, labor-management struggles); discovered and honed his ability to speak persuasively by talking to workers on the line at General Electric for eight years; was elected to and completed two full terms as governor of California; challenged and almost unseated an incumbent president of his own party; and went on to popularize modern conservative political philosophy without the help of a conservative infrastructure. Then he was elected president.

The point is not "He was a great man and you are a nincompoop," though that is true. The point is that Reagan's career is a guide, not only for the tea party but for all in politics. He brought his fully mature, fully seasoned self into politics with him. He wasn't in search of a life when he ran for office, and he wasn't in search of fame; he'd already lived a life, he was already well known, he'd accomplished things in the world.

Here is an old tradition badly in need of return: You have to earn your way into politics. You should go have a life, build a string of accomplishments, then enter public service. And you need actual talent: You have to be able to bring people in and along. You can't just bully them, you can't just assert and taunt, you have to be able to persuade.

Americans don't want, as their representatives, people who seem empty or crazy. They'll vote no on that.

Just before Halloween 2008, while out for a walk, I noticed that on the front porch of a nearby house sat a row of five pumpkins, each carved with one letter of Barack Obama's last name. The election was, at that point, a week away, and I was charmed by this seasonal display of Democratic support. Then I rounded the corner and spotted the exact same arrangement: a row of five pumpkins, each carved with one letter of Obama's last name. OK, so maybe not quite as original as I'd thought but still encouraging, at least for a liberal like me living in a swing state-my neighborhood, after all, is not in Brooklyn or Berkeley but in suburban St. Louis, Mo., a state that ultimately, by a margin of 0.1 percent, didn't go for Obama in '08.

This Halloween, it was clear that if I wanted to see a row of jack-o'-bamas, I'd need to carve them myself. Where once it was impossible not to trip over Obama enthusiasm, much of it shown by people not usually all that invested in politics and in ways that went well beyond bumper stickers or pins (remember the trend of young voters unofficially changing their middle names to Hussein?), these days, not only are Tea Partiers boiling over with fury at Obama, but even Obama campaign stalwarts Shepard Fairey of the Hope poster and YouTube sensation Obama Girl are feeling lukewarm about our president: Obama Girl, aka Amber Lee Ettinger, told the New York Post in January she'd give Obama a B- grade: "In my opinion, I feel like he should be focusing a lot more on jobs and the economy."

But my own feelings haven't changed at all. Two years after voting for him, I'm just as exhilarated as Oprah Winfrey was in Grant Park on Nov. 4, 2008. You might say, to borrow the accusation frequently leveled at the 2008 media, that I've remained in the tank for Obama. The only problem is that, currently, I seem to be in the tank by myself. Earlier this fall, when even NPR hosts were making jokes that could have been borrowed from Rush Limbaugh-the teaser for a recent episode of Wait Wait . Don't Tell Me! imagined that one of the "inspiring" quotations in the new Oval Office carpet was, "At least your daughters still like you ... probably"-I felt the unmistakable loneliness of being the last one left at a formerly hopping party.

Honestly, though, I'm surprised that so many people have turned against the president. Obviously, if you've lost your job, life is tough, but did voters really believe the country was going to quickly and dramatically reverse course once he was elected? So he hasn't yet made good on every campaign promise-isn't this like being shocked that you didn't lose as much weight doing Jenny Craig as Valerie Bertinelli did, or that your new memory-foam mattress didn't magically cure your insomnia?

It's not that I can't understand voters' frustration with, for example, the fact that the Guantanamo Bay detention camp is still open. So Obama is an imperfect president-who wouldn't be? During the almost two years he's been in office, I (apparently alone among sentient voters) don't think he's made any major missteps: As far as I can tell, the economic stimulus package might not have been perfect, but it prevented something bad from being even worse. Health care reform will offer better coverage-or coverage, period-to millions of Americans, including children and those with pre-existing conditions. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is providing billions of dollars to improve education and infrastructure. And, hell, I have no idea what Obama could have done differently with the oil spill, with the possible exception of not succumbing to political pressure and so-called optics by making Sasha go swimming with him off the coast of Florida.

So he hasn't yet gotten Congress to repeal "don't ask, don't tell"-at least he's explicitly assured us he wants to, and he recently indicated his view on gay marriage could "evolve." And, yes, it did give me pause in December 2009 when he announced that he was sending more troops to Afghanistan, but here's the thing: Although he was criticized for taking too long to decide on that plan, I was reassured by his aversion to acting hastily. In general, when I hear the criticisms of Obama-that he's professorial or wonky or emotionally restrained, that he's willing to listen to various points of view, that he likes arugula-I often think, wait, those are supposed to be insults?

Barack Obama. Click image to expand.President Barack Obama But, my fellow Americans, how quickly we forget! After an excruciating eight years of Bush, the thrill still hasn't worn off for me of once again having an intellectually nimble president, not to mention one who doesn't pride himself on going with his gut when it comes to foreign policy. Whenever I watched Bush speak extemporaneously, I'd feel alternately embarrassed by and for him. I'd be tempted to cover my eyes, as if watching a clumsy figure skater botching double Lutz jumps. And whenever I interacted with someone from another country, I'd feel compelled to mention that I hadn't voted for Bush.

But when I see Obama on television, I'm unfailingly struck by his intelligence and charisma, by his easygoing humor, by the magnificence of his megawatt smile. He just makes me proud, and perhaps this is where I should admit that if there are two categories of Obama critics-conservatives who never liked the guy and have in some cases become unhinged since he was elected, and centrists or Democrats who voted for him but now feel let down-I suspect that, in the visceral nature of my response to our president, I have more in common with the unhinged nut jobs. By this I mean that my Obama admiration is a kind of emotional inverse of the right-wing Obama antipathy: I can pretend it's all about policy, but in truth, it's much more personal. Where his detractors dislike him because of, say, that Muslim vibe he gives off, I like him for similarly nebulous, albeit slightly more factual reasons.

I like that he's married to-and seemingly still quite taken with-a strong, opinionated, gorgeous woman, and that he has two ridiculously cute daughters. I like his mind-bendingly multicultural extended family. I like that in a campaign interview in Glamour magazine, he could fluently and unabashedly talk about Pap smears. I thought that the beer summit of 2009 was delightful. I was even excited when Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, not realizing until pundits explained otherwise that I was supposed to be aghast at its prematurity. And I wasn't a bit offended by Obama's alleged 2008 debate gaffe-a line the otherwise irreproachable Frank Rich mentioned yet again in a column as recently as September-in remarking to Hillary Clinton, "You're likable enough, Hillary." Oh, and did I mention that I actually voted for Hillary in Missouri's Democratic primary? I was one of those Democrats who thought it'd be nice to have an entrée of eight years of Hillary, with Obama as a vice-presidential side, followed by eight years of a more seasoned Obama as the main course. I was always an Obama admirer, but maybe the fact that I was initially rooting for Hillary has prevented me from feeling the disappointment in his presidency expressed by certain Obamamaniacs. So swoony and ardent was their Obama love during the campaign that it couldn't be sustained; my more measured affection, by contrast, has grown over time.

At this point, I love Obama so much that I recently thought if it were 1961, I'd probably display a bust of him in my living room. Then I realized I'm already displaying the 2010 equivalent: On my living room wall, I have a framed version of that famous November 2008 New Yorker cover of the O moon over the Lincoln Memorial. Meanwhile, on my desk, I keep a printed-out photo I first saw on the Huffington Post in May 2009, of Obama in the Oval Office, bending over so a little African-American boy could rub his head. The boy, it turns out, was the child of a White House staffer, and the reason Obama was bending was, according to the caption in the White House's Flickr account, "The youngster wanted to see if the President's haircut felt like his own."

I don't care if it's good PR-the picture still practically brings tears to my eyes. It reminds me of the sense of excitement and possibility I felt in November 2008, as if in electing Obama, we Americans were acting as our best, smartest, least racist selves, as if there really was change we could believe in. And, OK, so it's been a long two years since then, and for a lot of people it's been an undeniably hard two years. But I'm just not convinced that's Obama's fault.

I'm also not convinced, my own hyperbolic tendencies aside, that I'm really the last Obama devotee standing. When I ask around, I find that the people who are disappointed in Obama aren't as disappointed as the media would have us believe, and that many aren't disappointed at all. In fact, some acquaintances have told me that they, too, feel surprised by the assumption that the Obama backlash is universal. Sure, a lot of the people I know are like me-Whole Foods shoppers, NPR listeners, Slate readers and writers-but I do live in a state where I'd be unable to avoid voters of varying political persuasions even if I wanted to.

During the years of George W. Bush's presidency, a popular magnet among my Democratic friends featured a serious photo of Bill Clinton, his hands clasped. "COME BACK BILL," the punctuation-free text read. "ALL IS FORGIVEN." My fear is that if Democrats continue to convince one another, and swing voters, of our president's failures and shortcomings, a similar Obama magnet might surge in popularity as soon as 2013-during a Mitt Romney administration, or a Mike Huckabee administration, or, God forbid, a Sarah Palin administration.

But even if my worst political nightmare comes to pass, I know I will never buy that magnet. After all, I've never thought there's anything for which to forgive Obama.

Final map of election results for governor, Senate and House races (and this map can be adjusted for the elections going back to the year 2000):

Guardian UK interactive map, which lists which states were held and which were overturned.

RUSH: Mitch Daniels, this is in TheHill.com: "Mitch Daniels: Weak Candidates Hurt GOP Drive for Senate." I guess Mitch Daniels needs some lobbying money from Trent Lott. "Republicans fell short of winning control of the Senate because of some weak candidates, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels told The Hill. 'We didn't turn up the strongest candidates.'" Compared to who? Jerry Brown, Dick "I'm proud of my service" Blumenthal? We didn't put up the strongest candidates?

"Tea Party-backed Republican candidates in Colorado, Delaware and Nevada were defeated Tuesday. Overall, Republicans gained six seats. ... Daniels said he believed the parties could come together on some issues: 'It's in the interest of everyone.'" It's not in the interests of everybody, Mitch, if we're the ones compromising. We did win. But, of course, the pressure will be brought to bear on all arriving Republicans. Trent Lott and Lindsey Graham have prepared a greeting for all of them.

This is from the Wall Street Journal, but he wrote it at the New Republic on November the 4th: "William Galston, former domestic policy adviser to President Bill Clinton," meaning he's a Democrat. "Although the share of the electorate [who were Independents] was virtually unchanged from 2006, their behavior was very different. In 2006, Democrats received 57% of the Independent vote, versus only 39% for Republicans. In 2010 this margin was reversed. This year 55% of independents voted Republican," 55%, and the Republicans didn't do anything to get it. They just sat there. They didn't have to do anything. They just weren't Democrats. Fifty-five percent of the precious independents. This is where political consultants and professionals live, the independents, the 20 to 25% of the moderates, independents, the uncommitted, they're the ones that everybody spends all the money to get, and 55% of them went Republican, 39% Democrat this year. "If independents had split their vote between the parties this year the way they did in 2006, the Republican share would have been 4.7% lower."

Now, why did they change? Remember, this is William Galston, a former domestic policy advisor to President Clinton. Why did the independents change? "Here we reach the nub of the matter: The ideological composition of the electorate shifted dramatically. In 2006, those who voted were 32 percent conservative, 47 percent moderate, and 20 percent liberal. In 2010, by contrast, conservatives had risen to 41 percent of the total and moderates declined to 39 percent, while liberals remained constant at 20 percent. And because, in today's polarized politics, liberals vote almost exclusively for Democrats and conservatives for Republicans, the ideological shift matters a lot." This is a liberal, Mr. Galston, confirming what I have said. There is a conservative ascendancy, and when conservatism is approached in an ideological basis, where the Republicans, in other words, appeal to voters ideologically as conservative, it works. In 2010, conservatives had risen to 41%, liberals 20%.

It's further evidence we are being governed by a minority. And wait a minute. We were told that the Tea Party would drive independents away, the Trent Lotts, the Lindsey Grahamnestys, the John McCains, I don't care who you go to in the Republican establishment all told us that the Tea Party would drive independents away. The Tea Party saved Lindsey Graham's bacon. The Tea Party saved the Republican Party. Were it not for the Tea Party, all of this that we're discussing would be academic. The Republicans would not have won diddly-squat. And yet, and maybe precisely because of that, the Tea Party is as resented by the Republicans as voters at large are held in contempt by Democrats. The Republicans are actually a little miffed at how they won. When you get right down to it, they are. How else do you explain that stupid story in The Politico yesterday? Failure. Failure, in the midst of a wipeout, in the midst of an historic win, 63 House seats, six Senate seats, we get a story about failure, Republican Tea Party failure because the Republicans did not win their precious chairmanships in the Senate.

So what we're faced with today is a Republican establishment ticked off at how they won, and doing their best to this moment to convince everybody that the Tea Party is why they didn't win even bigger. Well, that and the fact I talked about football too much. Mr. Galston continues: "This shift is part of a broader trend: Over the past two decades, moderates have trended down as share of the total electorate while conservatives have gone up. In 1992, moderates were 43 percent of the total; in 2006, 38 percent; today, only 35 percent," of the electorate, and yet they're the wonderful, smartest in the room people, they are the ones we have to go after. For conservatives, here are the numbers. In 1992, 36%. In 2006, 37%. In 2010, 42% versus 35% moderates.

"So the 2010 electorate does not represent a disproportional mobilization of conservatives: If the 2010 electorate had perfectly reflected the voting-age population, it would actually have been a bit more conservative and less moderate than was the population that showed up at the polls." What's happening here is that independents are shifting conservative. And who made that happen? Who's responsible for that, aside from me, of course, the Tea Party. The Tea Party is the reason and Obama is the reason independents started voting conservative. Regardless why, there is a conservative ascendancy. And who do you have trying to beat it down? The Republican GOP establishment, led by Lindsey Graham and Trent Lott and whoever else you want to throw into it, using willing accomplices at The Politico.

RUSH: This poor woman in North Carolina, Renee Ellmers, a congressional race in North Carolina, they found a bunch of ballots. This Etheridge guy was on the ropes, the RNC is not going in to help her because she's Tea Party, that race might flip to Democrat. The RNC's not going in to help her because she's Tea Party. Renee Ellmers in North Carolina against Bob Etheridge, the incumbent Democrat, she was ahead and now of course they found some ballots after the election somehow and they're all gonna go to Etheridge, and the RNC, the Republican campaign committee is nowhere near there to help her. It's just frustrating, it's maddening. But more than that, it's disappointing.

On Tuesday night Renee Ellmers in North Carolina, she is Republican, was leading by 2,099 votes. The next day, Sampson County, North Carolina, "elections officials discovered they hadn't reported totals from three of the county's four early-voting sites, said Johnnie McLean, deputy director of the State Board of Elections." So they found some votes, early votes that they miraculously hadn't counted. Just like in Bridgeport, Connecticut, they found a bag full of votes uncounted in a tight governor's race. And every time votes are found after the election is over, they all vote Democrat, and they all are only found in close races. So you had Renee Ellmers up basically 2,100 votes. She has asked for a recount now. She's asked the NRCC, the National Republican Congressional Committee, to help her with the recount costs, which might amount to $50,000, and they have refused. She's Tea Party. Ellmers also says that the GOP NRCC refused to help her with her campaign. In fact, their spokesman told the press that the campaign wasn't ready for primetime. Her campaign didn't deserve their help because she wasn't ready for primetime, which made it even harder for her to raise money in the first place. She said all this in an e-mail to supporters.

Now, these lost votes, these somehow newly discovered votes, they're always found by Democrats. In the case of Renee Ellmers, three out of four early voting sites, unreported totals, imagine that. In Bridgeport, Connecticut, a bag full. In Bridgeport, Connecticut, a bag of uncounted votes. This is how Al Franken ended up in the Senate from Minnesota. See, the Tea Party can't have the Tea Party. The Republican Party can't take the time to explain to America, "Yeah, the reason you don't like Obama, the reason you don't like Democrat policies, is because that's what liberalism is. Liberalism is why your house value is nonexistent. Liberalism is why you don't have a job. Liberalism is why we are in debt up to our eyeballs for generations. It's liberalism. This is what liberalism does. This is what they believe." No instead, what are we doing? We're running to the Politico with Lindsey Grahamnesty and Trent Lott to savage Sarah Palin and blame Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell and Palin for the fact that we didn't win our precious Senate, and telling Renee Ellmers to go to hell.

All right, I'm told that the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee is now going to go in and help Renee Ellmers. It was Etheridge that candidate for the recount, by the way. Thank you, Mr. Snerdley, for that bit of information. The NRCC is now ostensibly helping Renee Ellmers. They had to be called out on it but they are going in there. Look, we're gonna go to the phones here in just in time and I owe you people on hold an apology, it is Open Line Friday and we try to take more phone calls, but this really is important. We are sitting here on one of the greatest political opportunities of our lifetime. We have just -- the American people have just -- rejected liberalism. They need to be told that's what they did. Too many people don't yet realize that what they voted against I was liberalism. They think they're voting against "Washington not working," so they think they're voting against Washington. Again, Washington doesn't work. They want Washington to work.

I cannot say enough times: The folly of a tidal wave victory and wipeout, historic wipeout, and the next day the Republicans think what they have to first do is trash the Tea Party and Sarah Palin rather than seize this opportunity. If they want to win every year, if they want to be a generational winner, if the Republicans wanna resign the Democrats to being out of power for 40 years, here's how you do it. The Democrats just illustrated who they are and what they do nationally if unchecked. We've already got the example of Michigan. We've got the example of New Orleans and Louisiana. We've got the example of San Francisco. We've got it. Everywhere liberals run the show in conjunction with unionism, you've got utter despair and destruction. It's time it was pointed out.

RUSH: This really is important. We are sitting here on one of the greatest political opportunities of our lifetime. We have just -- the American people have just -- rejected liberalism. They need to be told that's what they did. Too many people don't yet realize that what they voted against was liberalism. They think they're voting against "Washington not working," so they think they're voting against Washington. Again, Washington doesn't work. They want Washington to work.

Why Washington doesn't work needs to be explained to them. It doesn't work because of liberals running it. It's just that simple. It's not complicated. It can be demonstrated. Now, the minute inside-the-Beltway Republicans start trashing liberalism, that's the day that they are rejected from the ruling class. The day they stop talking about bipartisanship and all that, that's the day they get kicked out of the ruling class, 'cause they're just invited guests in the ruling class. The Democrats control who's in the ruling class, in Washington. They control who's in the clique. But I cannot emphasize this enough. I cannot say enough times: The folly of a tidal wave victory and wipeout, historic wipeout, and the next day the Republicans think what they have to first do is trash the Tea Party and Sarah Palin rather than seize this opportunity? If they want to win every year, if they want to be a generational winner, if the Republicans wanna resign the Democrats to being out of power for 40 years, here's how you do it. The Democrats just illustrated who they are and what they do nationally if unchecked. We've already got the example of Michigan. We've got the example of New Orleans and Louisiana. We've got the example of San Francisco. We've got it. Everywhere liberals run the show in conjunction with unionism, you've got utter despair and destruction. It's time it was pointed out.

RUSH: Here's Timothy in Lompoc, California. It's great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Good morning, Rush. I just wanted to go back over to what made Reagan so great was his eternal optimism. He said that the problem with the country when he came in after Carter was the disease of pessimism and the cure for pessimism is optimism, and Barack Obama needs to have that presented to him as strongly as the Republicans can and never let up.

RUSH: Well, no. Let me tell you: I agree with that, and that's why the Republicans need to stop this pessimism about Sarah Palin and stop this pessimism about the Tea Party. You are exactly right. You know, Roger Ailes sends a memo out every once in a while. He surveys the situation at the Fox News Channel. He's done this wherever he has worked, wherever he has been a manager. Everywhere you work -- you people know it and I know it -- you always have people who are perpetually negative. They are perpetual pessimists, and they're always trying to stir people up that way. The depressed and the angry are always trying to get others to join them. Ailes sends out a memo to these people, unnamed.

He says, "You know who you are and I know who you are. Negative people make healthy people sick, and I'm not gonna tolerate it. Negative people make healthy people sick, and I'm not gonna have a shop full of sick people, and if I have to get rid of you pessimists and negative people, I will," and that's how he shapes it up. And I couldn't agree with that more. Pessimism, negativity is the natural predisposition, I'm convinced, of human beings. (interruption) No, no, Snerdley. Why is it that you have to go out and buy a book and you have to study the art of positive thinking? How come a guy who writes a book, Norman Vincent Peale, on the "Power of Positive Thinking" becomes a millionaire -- a multi, multimillionaire?

How come you don't need to go to the library or Amazon or wherever to find a book on how to be a pessimist? Nobody has to teach you how to do that. Optimism is something you have to work at. Pessimism is the natural state, I'm convinced, of the human being. Even this week I can't tell you how much pessimism I'm surrounded by. I've gotten to the point I've shut off half of my e-mail addresses. I've set up filters in my primary e-mail address to delete the e-mail from over half the people sending me stuff because it's nothing but pure negativity. Anger at this, anger at that, anger at the media and the way they covered the election Tuesday night, anger at the Republicans, anger here, anger there. There's anger at me for what I'm not doing!

I don't need to be surrounded by it. So this guy is exactly right. Reagan. You ask people back in the eighties about Reagan. He made people feel better about the country. He made people feel better about themselves. If you can do that to people, you can write your own ticket. If you can inspire happiness and optimism in people, A, you're a leader; but B, you'll have a lot of friends. But if all you are is just seeing the negative in everything -- in the midst of great glory -- I tell you, you're gonna drive people nuts. I'm convinced it's the natural state of the human being to be pessimistic. You stop and think about it and you will know that I'm right. How many of you go through the day and you don't have to think about how many people are bitching about something every day?

I don't care what it is, you don't have to stop and count 'em up because it's prevalent. It's happening. No matter where you go and no matter what you run into, somebody's always ticked off about something. I suggest that one of the primary reasons for it now is that liberals are running everything. Liberals happen to make everybody sour. Liberalism and what they do to the surroundings, what they do to the workplace, what they do to schools, what they do to government, what they did to the country would make anybody pessimistic -- and that's why it takes an effort to be optimistic, and that's why optimistic people are noted -- "God, you know, this guy's always smiling. He's always happy. He's always optimistic" -- because it's unique.

Stop and think about it. It's the natural state. I'm convinced that it is. Some people -- you've heard the phrase. It's either happily miserable or miserably happy. I forget which it is. My mother told me once. There are some people that are just happily miserable -- and if they're not miserable, something's wrong. I've played golf with guys like that. Let me tell you, you won't find more negativity than on a golf course. I played golf with guys who boom a drive down the middle of the fairway, and he's ticked off and mad. Oh, it's 'cause that means the next shot's gotta be horrible, 'cause he didn't deserve to hit that good a drive. I mean, it's everywhere, and I don't like being around it. I do not. It's the fastest thing to get me to lose it. (laughing) I know, you're all saying, "Whoa, what's Rush all ticked off about?" (laughing) No, it's something I constantly note.

RUSH: Now, this negativism, you wouldn't have believed it election night. I was inundated with it during the election coverage, as the returns were coming in. I had to almost shut off the e-mail. It was just overwhelming. It was really starting to tick me off and I didn't want to hear any of it 'cause there was no call for it as it turned out. Shirley MacLaine, that great philosopher, once said, "Dwelling on the negative simply contributes to its power," and that's true. I hope you all have had a great week. I hope you understand exactly how triumphant this week was. I hope you understand what a wipeout this week was and what a great opportunity it presents.

RUSH: Thanks for a great week here, folks. It was a wonderful week of broadcast excellence here at the Limbaugh Institute, and it was made possible primarily -- not entirely, but primarily -- by one man, Barack Obama, and who he is and what he stands for. And there are a gazillion more like him in the Democrat Party, and they are all the same way, and they need to be treated the same way the next election.

RUSH: Well, I had a chance to listen to just a little bit of the Obama press conference. Jake Tapper, ABC, asked Obama about the compromise that he might make on extending the Bush tax cuts. Right now, of course, the tax cuts will eliminate, stop for everybody, $250,000 or more, and maybe everybody's taxes will be raised. But believe me, there's no tax cuts on the table. And Jake Tapper said, (paraphrasing) "Would you compromise and say people who make a million dollars a year will not see their tax decrease, tax cut sunsetted?" And I started thinking, where's all this talk of rich equaling $250,000 a year, a million a year, where does all this start? What right does Obama have to sit there and proclaim that people who earn X are gonna be punished with Y, people who earn less than X won't be punished with Y? Do you notice how easy it is to fall into the premise trap that the left sets?

Looked at within the prism of liberty and freedom, as our founding documents spell out, the Declaration, the Constitution, in nowhere in any of our founding documents was it ever said that people earning X would be punished for it. It was never said in our founding documents that people earning X would share a greater burden of funding the government than people who didn't. Where does all this talk start? Because all this is nothing more than a direct attack on liberty, a direct attack on freedom and it creates class envy and resentment and anger between the classes, between people of different income groups. So all of a sudden we're faced with a possibility here of the Bush tax cuts ending for people who earn $250,000 a year or more. Well, why are we even discussing it in the first place? What did those people do? What is the magic? Who sets arbitrarily this figure of $250,000 a year? Why are they targeted? And look how easily people fall into the trap of debating the premise, when the real question is when is the federal government going to assume responsibility for the deficit spending, for the irresponsible position they put this country in? When are they going to be forced to reduce the behavior, to limit the behavior they are engaging in that is causing a usurpation of our liberty and freedom?

The question is not should people who make $250,000 or $500,000 or one million for some reason pay a higher burden of supporting the folly and the irresponsibility of people like Barack Obama and most people in government? Why are we even debating the premise if we really believe in liberty, if we really believe in freedom? Why do we acknowledge a premise that states the successful are gonna get punished, the successful are gonna pay the price? Where is it written that the people who create the problem get to demand that people who had nothing to do with creating the problem solve it, but first get blamed for it, because that's really what's happening here. People who are making $250,000 or $500,000 or a million, according to people like Barack Obama, and in fact most people in Washington, are somehow to blame for our deficit, somehow to blame for this out-of-control spending, somehow to blame for this generational theft. What did they do? What did the people earning $250,000 do to create this problem? What did the people who earn a million dollars do to create the problem? What did the people who earn $500,000 a year do?

What have they done that resulted in this irresponsibility in Washington? Nothing! The people who earn $250 or 500,000 or a million are in fact the people who are investing in this country and the private sector hiring other people, producing products and services that allow for the country's economy to grow and for people to have jobs and to earn higher wages. The federal government, the state government cannot and does not create wealth. All it can do is destroy it. All it can do is confiscate it. And what we're doing is discussing the proper level of servitude. What is your price? What are you

going to have to pay for the irresponsibility and for the misnamed, the maligned, the stupid, and the incorrect policies of liberals like Barack Obama? What level of servitude will you have to bear the responsibility for something you had nothing to do with? At what level are we going to proclaim you are more guilty than another citizen based on how much you earn? Where in our founding documents, where in natural law, where in the Constitution are these principles written?

So when Jake Tapper stands up, "Are you willing to compromise, Mr. President? Are you willing to compromise, maybe go $500,000 a year they get to keep the Bush tax cut, maybe a million?" And Obama, as the all-knowing, the all-whatever, "Yeah, I'll think about it," as though he has any right to. Who is Barack Obama to be able to say that any citizen in this country has to pay more to support his mistakes because of what they earn, and why do so many of us fall into the trap of thinking, yeah, that's fair? Why are so many people willing, accidentally, purposefully, to squander and give up their liberty and freedom so that they do not have to feel the guilt? What is the price of your freedom? You know, it used to be that Americans would give up their lives before they would give up their freedom. Americans would give up their lives before other people would have to give up their freedom. Americans would give their lives so that others might be free.

Now, who made Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid or any Democrat, I don't care, any Democrat, who made them the decider on what anybody should make and then what level of taxation they should pay? Who made them the deciders on what we should eat? Who made them the decider of what kind of lightbulbs we have in our homes? Who made them the deciders on the kind of car we should drive? Who made them the deciders on what kinda house we live in? Who made them the deciders of when and where we can and can't turn our lights on? Who made them the deciders of who loses how much of their freedom? Who gave them that power? It doesn't come from the Constitution. The Constitution does not say the Democrat Party gets to decide which car people drive, which lightbulb they have, what foods they can and can't eat, and what lights they can't turn off or on at what time of year. The Constitution does not say that the Democrat Party gets to decide any of this.

The Constitution does not envision this kind of usurpation of freedom. The Constitution does not envision nor allow for this kind of invasion of private property rights or overall liberty or freedom. It has to have been a political party looking at the Constitution and being unhappy with what it says, ignoring it in order to implement their policy. So now we have a guy who is the least qualified in any room he walks into being asked a question by an equally incompetent reporter, "Mr. President, are you willing to compromise, people that earn $500,000 a year will be able to keep more of what they earn, will you even go as high as one million?" And I'm watching this, who the hell are either of you people to decide this? How did I end up as an American with a guy who doesn't even like my country telling me how I have to live? How did that happen? How did I end up with a guy who does not even respect the founding documents of this country, how did I end up -- how did we all end up -- with that kind of guy telling us how immoral and unjust we are?

How did this happen? It happens because people for whatever reason are willing to sacrifice, and maybe not even know it's happening, little bits of their freedom and liberty now and then, under the auspices of it's a good cause, or it's in the name of compassion, fairness. Well, I want somebody to tell me what is fair about one incompetent having the right to systematically destroy my country. I want to know where the fairness is in that. I want to know why in hell anybody is even thinking about much less talking about compromising with this man. I want to know why anybody who believes in the Constitution wants to discuss compromising individual freedom or liberty with this man. Because that's what the compromise is. When people say that we must compromise with Obama, we are saying we must compromise on our freedom.

A lot of you have read books by Ayn Rand, some of you pronounce it Ayn Rand, I don't care. She asked a question once on compromise, "Where do you compromise between food and poison?" That's a little better than saying where do you compromise between good and evil because evil sometimes differs from person to person, but poison is poison. So where do you compromise with food and poison? "Oh, yeah, okay, you think I should eat arsenic but I don't want that much, just give me a little arsenic, because some global warming scientist said I could tolerate a little bit of it. But any more than that, and my death might cause the planet to warm." So where is this? You got a boot on your neck, where do you compromise with it? "Move the boot to my shoulder, please." (interruption) Did he just say this? I'm being told here that Obama just said, "I reject the idea my policies have taken the country in reverse."

Let me tell you something, President Obama. You can reject it all you want. But you've done it. And we know you're happy you've done it. You might want people to think you're not happy about the direction the country is going, but if you really were unhappy about it you'd do something to stop it. Instead, you're doubling down on it. You reject the idea your policies have taken the country in reverse? Where the hell have your policies taken us? You happily preside over a nation in decline. You have told the world no longer will the US population lead the world economy. Ain't gonna happen anymore.

I must take a brief time-out. I've been wanting to play Marco Rubio for you for a while. We'll get to that. I'm gotta get some phone calls, too. But I just had that thought hit me, I don't know why, but I'm listening to these two guys discuss $250, 500,000, million dollars, whether or not they're exempted from a tax increase. What the hell we are talking about here?

RUSH: Do you realize this is Obama's first press conference in months? Now, what does that tell you? This is his first press conference in months. What does that say about Obama's arrogance, his lack of any interest in hearing from others? He doesn't care about his ideas being tested or even questioned. You know, he doesn't even want to hear from these reporters. He's irritated when Jake Tapper. He's irritated when his minions standing up there! He doesn't want to talk to them. He doesn't even want to listen to his State-Controlled Media.

RUSH: They sent me a note yesterday and they wanted my take on their premise. I said the premise is flawed, it's a bunch of BS, and it's totally predictable. The Politico wanted me to talk to them about the fact that there were Republicans running around saying the Tea Party is responsible for the fact they didn't pick up the Senate. I'm not gonna comment on that. I'm gonna comment on it today because they got the story out there, it begs being placed in context, and of course nobody better than I, nobody better than me to do it.

Great to have you here, folks. It's the Rush Limbaugh program. This is the EIB Network. Great to have you, telephone number is 800-282-2882. The e-mail address, ElRushbo@eibnet.com.

From the Huffington Post: "Top Nevada Republican Endorses Harry Reid, Slams Sharron Angle." A bunch of Republican moderates in Nevada were endorsing Reid. Now, we'll get to all this in just a second. You don't want to miss this. Also, we're gonna replay the full-throated statement, the full-throated treatise for freedom that I mentioned yesterday at the top of the next hour. We're gonna replay it because some of our affiliates covered the Obama press conference yesterday and this needs to be heard by those of you who didn't get a chance to hear it. Those of you who did hear it, I am sure, judging on my e-mail you will want to hear it again.

Okay, at the moment, at the moment the net gain to the Republicans in the House seems to be 63. They seem to have lost three races and won 66. Now, if that ends up being the final result, you count the GOP pickup as six seats in the Senate, if that holds, my prediction on the total of 69 congressional seats will have been proved exactly correct. The number 69 seldom fails, and in this case it appears it's gonna come through with flying colors. Now, here's another thing, for months the news media was assuring us that the voters were angry at the incumbents in both parties. This was not an anti-Democrat election; it wasn't an anti-Obama agenda election; it was an anti-incumbent election. Well, look at the results in the House. The GOP lost three seats as I just mentioned. They gained 66. What does that tell you about the honesty of the media? What does it tell you? If you're not going to question their honesty, what does it tell you about their smarts? What does it tell you about their accuracy? They simply lie. And they lie without fear because no one has ever called them on it and if anybody ever does call 'em on it they don't care, 'cause that was yesterday, and they accomplished what they wanted with the lie as far as they're concerned, and they move on. That's why we call 'em the Drive-Bys. I'm glad it's all over, folks, to tell you the truth. Obama can now get back to his bipartisan unifying self.

Thirty-four warships will now be docked off the coast of Mumbai in India, 34 warships. We've got 40 aircraft, we've got over 800 people, 34 warships, and to top it all off they're running around cutting off all the coconuts off the trees, off the coconut palms because they might fall off and accidentally hit the president on his head. This looks like exile to me, invasion, what have you, I don't know, but it's amazing. It is unprecedented. Why is he even going to Mumbai? Isn't that a little dangerous in and of itself? We know he doesn't want to appear on Slumdog Millionaire game show, and two days after the election, he's long gone.

At any rate, here's The Politico story and it's just predictable. I knew this was going to happen. What you need to know about it and what's interesting about it is who is behind this. The Politico story: "GOP Senators Fight Over Failure." That's the headline of The Politico piece. Now, what is the failure? Would somebody tell me where the failure was yesterday? Yesterday was a wipeout. Yesterday was an unprecedented wipeout. It was a deep wipeout all the way to governorships and state legislatures. It was huge and the Democrats and the people at The Politico know it full well which is why they want to take a look at another direction. What failure? The failure here is the failure to capture the Senate. And of course we know that the people at The Politico are terribly upset about that. And we know that people at CBS and NBC and ABC are just wringing their hands, "Awe, damn it, the Republicans didn't get the Senate. Why, what a shame, why, who's responsible for this failure?" So we have to start looking to see who's responsible for this.

"Long-simmering tensions within the Republican Party spilled into public view Wednesday as the pragmatic and conservative --" what do you mean, spilled into public view? Did you see this, Snerdley? Dawn, did you see this? I didn't even hear about it until The Politico called me with the usual, "Hey, Rush, there's some Republicans out there --" I wasn't given any names. "-- they're really saying that it was the Tea Party that blew the chance to win the Senate. This is a contrived, created story, probably created by moderate Republicans, but certainly with the willing accomplices in the media. Failure? Long-simmering tensions spilled into public view? They have been in public view for a long time. It's why there is a Tea Party. They didn't spill into public view yesterday. And I'll tell you, if it weren't for the Tea Party there would not have been anything to talk about yesterday. There would have been reasons to write headlines denoting failure. If it hadn't been for the Tea Party the Republicans would be inconsequential, insignificant, which in the case of the establishment Republicans, they are, but just don't know it yet. And they're trying to stave it off.

What is this pragmatic versus conservative? That means conservatives cannot possibly be thoughtful, cannot possibly have any meaning. They're just knee-jerkers. "With tea party-backed candidates going down in Delaware, Colorado and Nevada, depriving Republicans of what would have been a 50-50 Senate, a bloc of prominent senators and operatives said party purists like Sarah Palin and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) had foolishly pushed nominees too conservative to win in politically competitive states." Okay, ladies and gentlemen, it is obvious now that the establishment Republicans are in open revolt against the people, and that's what this piece means. That is what this story is all about. Lindsey Graham is featured prominently in this story, as is Trent Lott. Trent Lott is now all of a sudden in the mainstream media a Republican elder statesman. There are also anonymous Republicans in the leadership. I wonder who that might be.

So we have Lindsey Grahamnesty and Trent Lott speaking on the record and there are some anonymous Republicans in the leadership who remain anonymous. And now they sit here a couple days after the election and they whine and they moan and they go crying to the Politico and the media about how sad and how unfortunate and what a big failure Tuesday was. Most of them did not lift a finger in the primaries for conservatives. In fact, Lindsey Graham originally endorsed Charlie Crist in Florida, as did McCain, as did John Cornyn. So they want to sit here and talk about failure and there's nothing forward looking about the Republican leadership here. This is a circle-the-wagon bunch of people, perfectly happy being in the minority and cutting deals, and now they're not unhappy they're in the minority, folks, don't misunderstand the headline, "GOP Senators Fight Over Failure." They're not happy they're in the minority. That's not what this is about. We told you it was gonna happen. This is ruling class versus country class, is all this is. This is all about the ruling class elder statesmen GOP establishment laying down markers here.

Now, Lindsey Graham loves to talk about being on a team, loyalty. Whatever he says, it's amazing, isn't it? This is the guy Obama would call on to cut deals. This is the guy who was in charge of the Gang of 14 undermining Frist and the others who were trying to stop Schumer from filibustering judges. Lindsey Graham is now the anointed leader, the man of reason. It was Trent Lott I think who authored the power-sharing agreement with Tom Daschle when we had 50 seats. "We're not gonna act like winners, we're not gonna rub their noses, genuine power share, we're gonna give an equal number of positions on committees, we're not gonna have a committee chairman, we're not gonna do all this." We just basically gave it all away and then Jumpin' Jim Jeffords changes parties and, bammo, we're in the minority. And these are the people that we're supposed to take advice from. These are the people who are supposed to guide us into the future. These are the people that didn't lift a hand, a finger, to help anybody during the primaries. Why is it that Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are not trashed by these same people for their independence?

I mean conservatives are said to be very independent, pragmatic, conservatives get trashed for being incompetent, off the reservation. Why is it that Graham, Collins, Snowe, they're off the reservation constantly, they are never trashed for their, quote, unquote, independence? The idea that these people represent the mainstream of the Republican Party, amnesty, constitutional rights for Al-Qaeda terrorists, I mean this is not the mainstream of the Republican Party. That's what's interesting about all this. Yet here's Graham quoted repeatedly about those nasty conservatives, how they're not the best candidates, Jim DeMint needs to be more of a team player. And now Trent Lott is out there saying that we would have won. We woulda won these remaining three races but for the Tea Party candidates. You see, this is interesting, establishment Republicans never lose races, they never lose. It's always somebody else's fault when these losses happen. They never lose.

Well, they lost the presidency to Obama. They came up with the nominee. They came up with the strategy. They came up with the agenda. They came up with the way it should be done. They're the people who tell us Colin Powell is the ideal Republican. They came up with all these ways that guarantee losing. They lost the presidency to Obama. They lost both houses. They lost the House, they lost the Senate in massive landslides to Pelosi and to Reid. We are trying to climb back from the disaster that they created, the confusion that they created, the model they call principles and all the rest. We're trying to climb out of the soup that they created and now it's our fault. It's your fault, the great unwashed, many of you who take two showers a day, by the way, still considered the great unwashed. They don't acknowledge because they can't acknowledge that but for the energy of conservatives across this country, the massive electoral gains on Tuesday would not have happened. Left to Lindsey Graham and Trent Lott, Tuesday would have not happened, no way, shape, manner, or form. And it did happen, and all of a sudden it's a failure. It's a failure because they didn't win their precious Senate. And they don't have their precious chairmanships of the committees.

Let's look at Las Vegas. Look at Nevada. Harry Reid spent tens of millions of dollars trashing all the Republicans. In fact, I would venture to say that the Democrats have a slush fund of over half a billion dollars. What do you think the stimulus bill really was? Didn't create jobs, did it? It was out there to fund Democrat campaigns. Harry Reid spent tens of millions of dollars trashing all of the Republicans in Nevada. He dragged down Sue Lowden. Sue Lowden was one of the leading Republicans in the primary race out there, her numbers get dragged down because Reid thought that she was gonna be the nominee so he simply trained his guns on Angle after she won the primary. It wasn't anything to do with anything other than Reid was gonna trash any Republican who got the nominee, didn't matter if it was Angle, didn't matter if it was Sue Lowden. He trained his ammo on Sue Lowden first. Are any of these people wondering why in the hell did Sue Lowden lose?

You can sit here and say that Sharron Angle wasn't your favorite candidate, but why did Sue Lowden lose? Where were all of you establishment types helping her? Where was your on-the-ground money during the primaries helping Sue Lowden while Harry Reid is trashing her? The Democrats trash everybody with an (R) beside their name. It's not just Sharron Angle, it wasn't just Christine O'Donnell. Castle would not have won in Delaware. So there's Reid training his guns and all of his money and all of his union thuggery on Angle after he takes care of Sue Lowden, but to say that Sue Lowden would have won is nonsense. She could have just as easily have lost as so many more moderate Republicans always do, and then what would they have said? If Sue Lowden had been the nominee and lost we would not even get this story today. We're only getting a story about failure here because conservatives ended up on the ballot and the ruling class of the Republican Party doesn't want conservatives having any kind of a foothold, any success or any leadership in the party.

Let's look at Alaska. No, let's don't. If I get started on Alaska I'll run through what I must do and that's stop for an obscene EIB profit center time-out. Back and looking at Alaska after this.

RUSH: Look, folks, I don't like doing this any more than you like hearing it. I was minding my own business today. I was in a great mood and I get up and I see this headline: "GOP Senators Fight Over Failure," and I'm asking myself, "How many crazy Tea Party people sought Senate seats?" How many? What did we have? How many Senate seats were up? Thirty-seven Senate seats were up for election. How many Tea Party crazies ran? How can you blame three or four Tea Party types when you have that many seats up for election? Fifteen were in play, and all of a sudden it's the Tea Party. James Carville said the Democrats -- after 2008, James Carville said the Democrats -- would be in charge for 40 years. Two generations. That's what James Carville said.

James Carville was looking at the existing Republican leadership and saying (impression), "We got those boys. We got 'em now! They're gonna be -- they're gonna be -- they're gonna be in the minority there for 40 years," because he was looking at Lindsey Graham and he was looking at Trent Lott. He was looking at all these architects of two landslide losses. He was happy. "We gonna have a 40 year majority for the Democratic Party. Where my gumbo?" Because he was looking at the wrong people. Now what happened? The 40-year majority is down the tubes in a massive landslide defeat -- Rushslide, if you will. It was a wipeout, and I get up today, and I see a headline: "Republican Senators Fight Over Failure." Now, let's take a look at Alaska. There's a video out there: Lisa Murkowski said that she would not support repealing Obamacare.

She made that comment before the primary. That is one of the reasons she lost apparently in Alaska. Every poll shows the public strongly against Obamacare, and the Republican Party publicly is saying that they are committed to repealing it but not Murkowski. Not Murkowski! Yet Murkowski is supported by Graham. Murkowski is supported by Lindsey Graham -- who also, by the way, said that he wanted to work with Obama to pass cap and trade. Even the Democrat senator-elect from West Virginia says ain't no way we're passing cap and trade. But Lindsey Graham is all for it. And, by the way, Obama has now said, "You know what? We're gonna drop cap and trade," but don't be fooled. He's not forgetting his agenda. He's just dropping cap and trade as the way to get there. Murkowski is supported by Graham and others. She's a team player, she's out of the mainstream, great candidate. What will she do to the future of the GOP and the nation, right? This is how we win?

RUSH: "GOP Senators Fight Over Failure." That's the most exciting story the Drive-By Media has today. They're so excited about Republicans fighting over failure, when there wasn't any. How do you look at yesterday and see failure? Admittedly, there are some Republicans who do, and of course since they're moderates -- and reasonable, ruling class Republicans -- the media's only happy to give them all kinds of ink. Far be it for a bunch of Republicans to talk about success after 63 seats in the House. After picking up six Senate seats, a total of 69 seats in both houses, far be it for the moderates to be interested in success. Two years after James Carville said the Democrats are gonna have the majority and be in power for 40 years -- two years after The Messiah was elected president, two years after a man unlike any we have ever seen -- was elected.

One month after he was immaculated, the Republican Party was in the throes of a massive depression. The Republican Party thought, "Oh, my gosh, the only way outta this is to agree with Obama and support him and make people think we're nice people." Lo and behold, where are we? A greater pickup of seats than any since the thirties, whatever it is: 63 in the House, six seats in the Senate. Let's look at Delaware. A flawed candidate, they say, Christine O'Donnell. Was she as flawed as McCain? Let me just ask the question. Was she as flawed as Senator McCain? I mean, he's got temperament issues, among other things. Everybody talked about 'em. Was she as flawed as some of the candidates running who have cheated on their spouses?

Was she as flawed as great Democrats like Bob Byrd? Did Christine O'Donnell ever recruit members of the Ku Klux Klan? Did Christine O'Donnell ever get in a car and drive a guy off a bridge and let him drown like Ted Kennedy did? Did Christine O'Donnell ever go to Vietnam and trash her own country, come back and throw fake medals over the White House fence like John Kerry did in his lies about our troops in Vietnam? Not even close, and yet Christine O'Donnell is a flawed candidate. The establishment wanted Mike Castle, a liberal, selfish, professional politician who would help them get their chairmanships back, they hoped. Because what they want is not to save the country. They're not interested in bringing the country back from the abyss; they want to be in charge of the money for four years.

It's their turn, their turn to be able to dispense the goodies from the positions of committee chairmanships. So it seems to me that they appear to be perfectly happy being in the minority, if it means not supporting conservatives. They'd be happy to be in the majority if they can get there without conservatives. Let's talk about flawed candidates. Joe Biden: Plagiarist, pathological liar. He and his family have been involved in some shady deals. Harry Reid? He goes to Washington a mere pauper, now is a multimillionaire. How does that happen? Was he flawed? No. They think Harry Reid's not flawed, but Christine O'Donnell was flawed. The way I'm looking at this is the Tea Party lost two seats: Delaware and then Nevada. How is the Tea Party responsible for this?

So it appears to me they're perfectly happy being in the minority if it means not supporting conservatives. They want to be in the majority if it means getting more personal power in terms of chairmanships and so forth. As long as they don't have to actually change course. I mean, that's too hard. That is really hard work, changing course. It's easier to be lazy, intellectually void of serious ideas. Be fat and happy with life as it is. Apparently the establishment Republicans will fight harder and more viciously to stop conservatives than to stop Obama and the left. And it's obvious, is it not? Any story that has a headline: "GOP Senators Fight Over Failure" ought to be about Obama.

Any story that's about failure and the Republican senators fighting over failure ought to be about Obama and his agenda and what it is doing to this country. Yet we wake up today and we find a lead story in Washington is Republican senators are all bent outta shape over the fact that some Tea Party candidates lost, denying them the Senate. The real failure that has encompassed all of us, the real failure permeating this entire country, is named Barack Obama and the Democrat Party. That's where the failure is and that's where the focus ought to be: Fight harder and more viciously to stop Obama. Fight harder and more viciously to stop liberalism. Fight harder and more viciously to fight and stop liberalism. But no. The ruling class is going to reserve all of its energy and all of its ingenuity and all of its resources to fight conservatives.

We took six Senate seats and we might get another one, who knows. I want to know: Who did Lindsey Graham campaign for? Somebody tell me, who did he campaign for? We took six Senate seats. Did he campaign for any of them? As I say, I'm very uncomfortable doing this. I'm minding my own business... (interruption) I know they're not uncomfortable attacking me, Snerdley, but I'm uncomfortable doing this. This ought not be happening here, but it is what it is. The future of the Republican Party is not Lindsey Graham. It certainly isn't Trent Lott. They're the Old Castrati. The liberals, they are the New Castrati. But these Republicans-in-name-only and the GOP establishment types are the Old Castrati.

This GOP pickup was the greatest in modern history. In 1932 the pickup was only 55, and that was seen as the mother of all rejection of Hooverism. We got 63 seats (and maybe some more) and six seats in the Senate (and maybe some more there), and we get a story about failure, and it does not include Obama! How in the world can we get a story about Republicans talk about failure and not include Obama and the Democrats and what happened to them on Tuesday? We ought to do a little test today, Snerdley. You know, I don't like to do this kind of thing because it distracts from what we normally do. Maybe we ought to do a test. How many callers believe Lindsey Graham and Trent Lott are the future of the Republican Party?

Let's do this. Every one of you people calling today, you can talk about whatever you were going to call about, but I want to ask each of you before you get into what you wanted to talk about who you believe to be the future of the Republican Party. If you think it's Lindsey Graham, if you think it's Trent Lott, I'm gonna ask you. I'll leave it up to you. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm totally misjudging this. I'll ask the people. Look at Sharron Angle. She's out there, she's running against the majority leader in the US Senate. The majority leader had Big Labor and big business aligned against her, as well as a big party in the GOP establishment running in a state that he isn't red anymore. I've got a story. What did I do with that story? Here it is.

From the Huffington Post: "Nevada State Sen. Bill Raggio, who is considered to be one of the most influential Republican lawmakers in the Silver State, endorsed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in his reelection fight against GOP challenger Sharron Angle on Thursday." That's October 7, 2010, the date of the story. "Raggio has served in the Nevada state legislature since 1972... [G]iven the caliber of his own party's nominee, he said in a statement Thursday, that time has come." I can't endorse this. Sue Lowden was their preferred candidate but they didn't do anything to help her.

I mean, the Reid people trained their guns on Sue Lowden and she went down. Sharron Angle won the primary, what are we supposed to do here? And they have no ground game! Steele and these boys had no money for any ground game, no ground game whatsoever, in Nevada and we sit around gonna blame Sharron Angle for this. Fat cats sit in their offices in Washington, answer the phone from The Politico and say, "Yep, it's a giant failure. We didn't get our Senate back. Reid, it's not Reid's fault. It's Sharron Angle's fault. It's Tea Party's fault, Ken Buck's fault, Christine O'Donnell's fault." This is not how you build a party.

Christine O'Donnell is running in a dark blue state. She's trying to win the so-called Biden seat. She's trying to change the party in Delaware which had gotten fat and lazy, supporting the same candidate for years -- who was also destined to lose in this race. He didn't endorse her, did not jump on board the party after she won the primary. You don't build a party like this. You don't win elections nationwide like this. You do what we just did on the conservative side, if you want to win elections and build a party. But even if our side lost I'll damn full assure you we wouldn't have called The Politico and said, "You know what, the problem here is?"

We've always united around these guys after whatever happened in any election. They don't. That's clearly in evidence, here. Who did Lindsey Graham campaign for? What money did he raise for conservative candidates? Did he do 1% of what Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint did? Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Sarah Palin, they have more onions than Lindsey Graham or Trent Lott -- and that's the problem. Republican women got more fortitude, more guts than these Port-and-cigar-in-the-ballroom Republican establishment types. If only Christine O'Donnell had been a sensible candidate like Barney Frank. If only Christine O'Donnell had been sensible like Colin Powell, then maybe she would have won, same thing with Sharron Angle. If she'd-a just been as sensible as Charlie Rangel.

RUSH: I'll tell you what, if the Republican establishment types are gonna run out there and blame O'Donnell and blame Angle, they better blame me because I was right in there with them. The problem is that all over the liberal media today I'm being called a winner. So imagine in the liberal media, I'm the winner, but in the Republican establishment I am a failure along with Angle and O'Donnell.

Did you see that new Airbus A380, an engine, which is as big as a building, blew up? It just obliterated. Plane landed safe. I am glad I canceled my order for the Airbus A380. That's $250 million I didn't need to spend, as it turns out. I wouldn't be able to get it into a lot of small airports anyway, so it's a good thing that I canceled my order.

Lamar Alexander had the class to go to Delaware and campaign for Christine O'Donnell. Did Lindsey Graham? He did not. These people are so concerned about winning a majority, what did they do? Did Graham go to Colorado, Nevada, Alaska, Delaware, West Virginia, campaign for conservatives? I don't know. Maybe he did. I just didn't see it. But can you imagine if we ran, if the Republican Party this election cycle had run on the Lindsey Graham agenda, which is amnesty for illegals, which is rights for terrorists, which is cap and trade, which is McCain-Feingold, maybe now they can make it McCain-Graham science Feingold is gone, if we had run on Lindsey Graham's agenda, where would we be? We would be out of power for 40 years and we get a story in The Politico today about Republican failure, it doesn't include Obama, after we pick up 63 seats in the House and six in the Senate. This guy, he can't even be counted on to vote against a liberal activist for the Supreme Court. McCain will campaign harder against J. D. Hayworth than against a Democrat. Mort Kondracke, who once called me a hot dog on the Special Report with Brit Hume, was on the Congressional Quarterly/Roll Call conference call today, and he spoke about the 2010 midterm election in the government, and the moderator, Fred Barbash, "Okay, Mort, what's the agenda out there?"

KONDRACKE: The right wing has been empowered and emboldened within the Republican Party and there will be shrieking every time any Republican leader attempts to make a compromise with the Democrats. You can just imagine Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin all of whom are saying, "Do not compromise, do not compromise, do not compromise. We were elected. We were put here. This is it." So this is the makings of gridlock.

RUSH: That's exactly right, Mort, exactly right, and Mort, there's a whole large percentage of the country thanking me, and a lot of people are gonna be happy with gridlock, damn straight gridlock, damn straight. What's it gonna take to stop this agenda of Obama's but gridlock, until we get a majority in the White House to really start rolling it back? And, Mort, what is this obsession that we, the winners, have to compromise with the losers? When did that happen? Let's go back to World War II. It's MacArthur and the Japanese on the USS Missouri. The last time I looked, the conditions of surrender were offered the Japanese and they had to sign it and that was it. I don't think MacArthur asked the Japanese what we, the United States, had to do. Where was the compromise with the Japanese? Where was the compromise with the Germans in World War II? "Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Limbaugh, are you comparing the Democrat Party to the Japanese and the axis powers in World War II?" What if I am? We did give the Russians Eastern Europe. We compromised with the Russians after World War II and what did we get? A Cold War and starvation and mass murder. So, yeah, we're not interested in compromising with the left, and, as winners, you don't compromise with losers. It's the other way around. Learn it, love it, live it, Mort.

Quantitative Easing. What the Fed announced yesterday at 2:15, didn't get a whole lot of attention. The stock market is going through the roof because of it. What is it? Quantitative Easing is where a country's central bank, i.e., the Federal Reserve, tries to boost the economy by increasing lending by increasing the money supply. How do they do that? Well, the Federal Reserve announced they're gonna purchase about $600 billion in Treasury securities. That's about $75 billion per month for the next eight months. This is the government printing new money to purchase existing Treasury securities that have already been issued and are currently owned. All right, so who owns them? Well, banks, Wall Street firms, insurance companies, pension funds, other governments. The purpose of the program, the purpose of QE2 is to reflate the economy, to create wealth via higher stock and bond prices, via inflation. It's another stimulus. They tried it once before. That's why it is QE2, Quantitative Easing 2.

In addition to the $600 billion, the Federal Reserve will also purchase $250 billion of Treasury securities with TARP money. Remember that TARP money? We had to bail out that $700 billion. If we didn't, the world financial system would cash in 24 hours. We still have $250 billion of that unspent. So that $250 billion to purchase Treasury securities with TARP money again over the next few months. The total package will be $100 billion a month over the next eight months. The Federal Reserve is not buying the stocks. The institutions will have more money as a result of selling the Treasuries to the Fed and they use the money to buy securities and thus higher prices and this creates the impression of the economy's growing, Wall Street, Dow Jones Industrial Average climbing every day, wow, look, we got an economy recovery. The purpose of the program is to put more cash, liquidity, into the system. Banks, Wall Street firms, insurance and pension funds, money firms who own them get the cash. The goal is the banks and other lending institutions will also lend the money to business and consumers to expand their business.

They did this once and it didn't work and the small business people tell you this is not what we need. We don't have a credit problem. We don't have any customers. Our problem is there aren't any customers. Our problem is we don't have any sales and we don't have any sales because there aren't enough people working. More and more people are losing their jobs. Unemployment claims "unexpectedly" went up again. Unexpectedly. Past stimulus plans from Obama's to Quantitative Easing 1 have not helped the economy. They have not created sufficient job or economic growth. They have failed. Excessive printing of money and spending has hurt the value of the US dollar. The value of the dollar is down over 15% since Ben Bernanke began talking about QE2 back in August.

Now, the past stimulus money, previous, went to commercial banks, investment banks, Wall Street firms who have not lent the money, which we predicted. We predicted when TARP came they're not going to lend the money, they're not gonna redistribute, they're going to shore up their own accounts, they're gonna shore up their own bottom line, they're gonna keep it, which they did. They have not lent the money to business and consumers as planned. The money has not been used to spend on new projects or on hiring people or creating growth. I mean interest rates are practically zero. They're getting money for nothing. I mean it's almost as though they're being given money. That's how low interest rates are for these transactions. And they have used this zero-cost money to buy and trade Treasury securities or other financial instruments and made money on the differential. It doesn't cost them anything to get money, they invest it, they get a big return on it. Why would they lend it? Why would they put it out there at risk to somebody who may not be able to pay it back when they can invest it and shore up their own bottom lines, which is what's happened. The money is being printed, it is being invested to banks and firms and Wall Street firms and it's stopping with them. It's not circulating.

It didn't work in QE1, so damn it, you know, let's try it again, QE2. What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. So the banks and all the people who are getting the newly printed money are using it to make more money, maintain a strong balance sheet during troubled Financial Times, make themselves look solid. Now, in the past, with Obama and the Democrats controlling the presidency and the House and the Senate, things were far too uncertain politically and economically. It's another reason why all these firms have all this cash. You've heard the number, trillions of dollars in cash, firms are sitting on it. Democrats are running around, "Why don't they invest it? These are selfish people." No, the objective is not to lose it. And they don't know, speaking of taxes and freedom and loss of liberty, they don't know how much of it Obama's gonna come and claim. They don't know how much Obama is going to cost them. But they got a good idea, it's gonna be a lot.

So they're holding it in reserve to be able to either pay it or to finagle a way around it. They're willing to be criticized for this, too. Ask yourself, what's a big number to you? Let's say you had a hundred thousand dollars, and everybody was expecting you to take that hundred thousand dollars and spend it on something. But you weren't sure what the future held and you've got your family to be concerned about and yourself, and you think down the road the federal government might have policies that are gonna make that hundred thousand dollars worth 40 or 50. Well, you're gonna hold onto it, shelter it as best you can trying to keep it away from those guys as long as possible, 'cause it's yours, you've earned it, or in some cases the Fed has given it to you, but regardless, you don't want to give it to Obama. It's not his.

In addition to all that, the USA world economy has been coming out of a financial crash, this thing in 2008, 2009. The institutions were very hesitant to lend the money back then so credit became and is still hard to get for a lot of businesses and people. And many of the companies and people whom the money was meant to be lent to were too hesitant to borrow it for the same reason. And these are the people who are saying we don't need easier access to credit. We need customers. We need sales. So I mean you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make the horse drink, so there was no average American or corporate beneficiary of any of this. Now with QE2 they want to attempt the same thing as they tried in the past, much of the previous stimulus money still out there. And, despite what you've heard, a lot of it -- well, I'm sure some of it's now been spent in this election cycle, but up until this election cycle, campaign cycle, a lot of the stimulus had not been spent; it had been held in reserve. And a lot of people think because of that there's already enough money out there. There was $250 billion unspent TARP money. Why are they printing more? It's a mistake. There should be sufficient money to achieve the goal of reflating the economy without printing the money, but they don't think there is.

So the number of trillions that corporations are now sitting on in cash is $2 trillion. It is estimated that consumers are sitting on a combined $8 trillion in cash saving money, hedging their bets against the future not knowing but having a very great fear of what the future holds. US corporations have over a trillion dollars sitting in offshore accounts that benefit other countries and not the USA. We talked about this last week about double taxation. If Obama and US Congress would simply change tax rules some of that money being held offshore would be brought home and that would begin circulating in our economy. Now that the Democrats have lost the House, the Obama presidency and the Democrat controlled Senate can no longer do whatever they want. The Republicans have now created a check and balance, and this is going to lead to gridlock, which the markets absolutely love. One of the reasons the market is skyrocketing is because they can anticipate the gridlock that's coming. They love it, because that's not uncertainty. The uncertainty that has plagued the country and its companies for two years, uncertainty and fear now for the most part can be eradicated.

So the notion of gridlock -- which Mort Kondracke is very afraid of -- the notion of gridlock creates a more confidence business and consumer environment, which results in an expanding economy utilizing the increasing liquidity that has been injected by the Fed. So it has some potential, because of this money firms that have been holding the cash, been too hesitant to spend it or lend it, can see some credit ease, maybe, and we don't need the QE2 to do this. We don't need to start printing money. This is simply unnecessary, totally unnecessary. Money firms that have been holding the cash have been too hesitant to spend it or lend it, feeling we can see credit ease up, borrowers wanting to borrow, companies and small business, individuals feel better and safer, more confident to spend the cash, we'll see if it happens. It's still largely gonna depend on what President Obama's policies are, what happens. Robert Fibbs floated the idea this afternoon they're now open, they say, to extending the Bush tax cuts to everybody. We'll see. So that's what QE2 is. It's an attempt to stimulate the economy in identical ways that have failed up 'til now.

The problem is if this doesn't work. If it doesn't work, and if these banks just sit on the cash, again, if the institutions just sit on the cash, hello inflation. And a lot of people are saying that's good because that will show growth. One of the fastest ways to retire debt is to inflate the currency because you're automatically gonna retire some of it just by virtue of the inflation. So if the economy doesn't take off, the Fed's not gotta be able to sell these bonds that it bought. Remember, the Fed's buying all these Treasury bonds. The dollar will be devalued and we'll have inflation, maybe even hyperinflation if this doesn't work. That's why people are really leery of it, that's why it's so damned risky and a lot of people are scratching their heads, "Why are we doing this, it isn't necessary."

RUSH: Now, to put this in perspective, during QE1 (Quantitative Easing 1, that was December 2008 through March of this year) the Fed bought $1.7 trillion of Treasury notes and mortgage-backed securities. So if $1.7 trillion didn't do the trick, why will another $600 to $800 billion help? Even the New York Times is afraid of this. I don't like quoting them, but they're not even on board with this.

RUSH: Did you happen to hear Marco Rubio's acceptance speech? We have some sound bites of it. He struck an interesting tone as did Boehner. (paraphrasing) "It's really not time to celebrate here, one in ten Americans are out of work, future in question because of all of this massive debt. There's really not a whole lot to celebrate here. There's a lot of hard work that needs to take place." Rubio was amazing, and, of all the Republican wins last night, it's Rubio that has the Democrats probably as scared as anybody. They're as scared of Rubio as they have been scared of anybody, because Marco Rubio is supposed to be the quintessential Democrat. Marco Rubio is supposed to be the kind of guy that could only be elected by Democrats, the only kind of Hispanic that could ever win as a Democrat and look what he did. Marco Rubio ran as a Reagan Republican and he got 50% of the vote in a three-way race.

RUSH: As promised, we'll start with Marco Rubio and his acceptance speech last night in Coral Gables, Florida, after he won a three-way race with 50% of the vote. Now, this victory, the Marco Rubio victory, you may not hear it anywhere but here, this is the one that has the Democrats worried. I mean, they know they got wiped out last night. This man, Marco Rubio, and his future, this is something that they are deathly worried about. Here's the first of three sound bites.

RUBIO: We make a grave mistake if we believe that tonight these results are somehow an embrace of the Republican Party. What they are is a second chance, a second chance for Republicans to be what they said they were going to be not so long ago. (cheers) You see, I learned early on in this campaign -- in fact, it's what propelled me to enter it -- that what this race was about, was about the great future that lies ahead for our country, a future that Americans know is there for the taking.

RUBIO: I know America's great, not because I read about it in a book, but because I've seen it with my eyes. I've been raised in a community of exiles, of people who lost their country, of people who know what it's like to live somewhere else. By the way, a community that I am proud to be a part of. A community -- (cheers and applause) A community of men and women that were once my age, and when they were they had dreams like we have now, and yet they lost all those things through an accident of history. No matter where I go or what title I may achieve, I will always be the son of exiles.

RUSH: They hate hearing this. They just hate it. I mean, every person like Marco Rubio should be registered as a Democrat, should be voting Democrat, should be running for office as a Democrat. Here he tells the story of the American dream as lived by his father.

RUBIO: He grew up largely in a society where what you were going to be when you grew up was decided for you. This is like almost every other place in the world. Think about what that means. That means that before you are even born, how far you're going to get to go in life is decided for you by who your parents are or are not. He was fortunate enough to make it here to America where he was never able to capture his own dreams of his own youth. Instead, he made it the mission of his life to ensure that his children would have every opportunity he did not, that every door that was closed for him would be open for them, that the day would never come for them that came for him: The day when he realized that his own dreams would not be possible, and so now life was about opening the pathways for his children. This story I know well, and it verifies to me the greatness of our country. Because tonight, with your vote, you have elected his son to the United States Senate.

RUSH: Now, this is interesting because Marco Rubio has lived it. His father wasn't born here. Marco Rubio didn't read about it in a book, as he said. He does not have to wonder what the people who paid the price had to go through. You know, of all the things, I love that particular bite. He "grew up largely in a society where what you were going to be when you grew up was decided for you like almost every other place in the world." Here is a short explanation of American exceptionalism. "This is like almost every other place in the world. Think about what that means. It means that before you are even born, how far you were gonna go in life is decided for you by who your parents are or are not." It's true, in part, in this country. The Kennedys are a great example. But it's not true for everybody. You don't need special circumstances to get anywhere in this country. You do everywhere else.

Since there are some links you may want to go back to from time-to-time, I am going to begin a list of them here. This will be a list to which I will add links each week.

Conservative blog, but with an eye to the culture and pop culture (there is a lot of stuff here):

Conservative and pop culture blog (last I looked, there were some Beatles’ performances here):

Send this link to the young people you know (try the debt quiz; I only got 6 out of 10 right):

PA Pundits, whose motto is, “the relentless pursuit of common sense” (I used many of the quotations which they gathered)

The anti-Jihad resistence (which appears to be a set of links to similar websites):

Mostly a liberal blogger, who says vicious things about most conservatives; and yet, says something sensible, e.g. posting many of the things which the healthcare bill does to us.

News Organization (I mention them because I have seen 2 honest stories on their website, which shocked and surprised me):

Even though this group leans left, if you need to know what happened each day, and you are a busy person, here is where you can find the day’s news given in 100 seconds:

Weatherman Underground 1969 “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.”

Janine Turner’s website (I’m serious; and the website is serious too). This is if you have an interest in real American history:

Judith Miller is one of the moderate and fairly level-headed voices for FoxNews:

This is an odd blog; conservativism, bikinis and whatever else posted by either a P.I. or the brother of a P.I.:

Info Wars, because there is a war on for your mind (this site may be a little crazy??):

The Magic Negro Watch (this is peppered with obscenities and angry conservative rhetoric):

Do you want to watch what is happening on our border? These are actual videos of observations cams along the border:

No matter what your political stripe, you will like this; evaluate your Congressman or Senator on the issues:

AC/DC economics (start with the oldest lessons first; economics in 60 second bites):

The Freedom Project (most a conservative news and opinion site which appears to concentrate on matters financial)

This appears to be a daily pork report, apparently as pork in Washington bills is discovered, it gets posted at Tom Coburg’s website:

Weekly poll, asking you to identify what we ought to cut in governmental spending:

This is an interesting site; it seems to be devoted to the debate of climate change:

This is indispensable: the Wall Street Journal’s guide to Obama-care (all of their pertinent articles arranged by date—send one a day to your liberal friends):

Obamacare class action suit (as of today, joining in on the suit costs you whatever you want to donate, if I understand the form correctly):

A Muslim apologetic site (they will write out letters to express your feelings, and all you have to do is sign them, and they will send them on):

Since this will be with us for a long time, the timeline of the BP gulf oil spill:

This is cool: a continuous timeline of the spill, with the daily info and the expansion of the oil, and the response:

Army Ranger Michael Behenna sentenced to 25 years in prison for 25 years for shooting Al Qaeda operative

Maybe the White House does not need to hold press conferences? It releases exclusive articles daily right here:

This is quite helpful; it is a list of all leftist groups, with links to background information on each of these groups (when I checked, 879 groups were listed). This is a fantastic resource.

In case you need to reference this, here are the photos of all those on the JournoList:

Are you tired of all the unfocused news and lame talking heads yelling at one another? Just grab a cup of coffee, sit back, and see what is really going on in the world:

Conservative New Media (it is so-so; I must admit to getting tired of seeing the interviewer high-fiving Carly Fiorina 3 or 4 times during an interview):

One of the more radical people from the right, calling for the impeachment of Obama:

The Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a free enterprise site (there are several videos on the flat tax):

This is a pretty radical site which alleges that Obama is a Marxist hell-bent in taking over our country:

1982 interview with Larry Grathwohl on Ayers' plan for American re-education camps and the need to kill millions

This is a news site which I just discovered; they gave 3 minute coverage to Obama’s healthcare summit and seemed to give a pretty decent overall view of it, without slanting one way or the other:

I have glanced through their website and it seems to be quite professional and reasonable. They have apparently been around since 1942.

This is fantastic; Florida (the Sunshine State) is now putting its state budget online:

Suzanne Somers s supposed to be older than Bill O’Reilly? He interviewed her this week, and she looked, well, hot. She is big into vitamins and human growth hormones.

The National Journal, which is a political journal (which, at first glance, seems to be pretty even-handed):

And I am hoping that most people see this as non-partisan: Citizens Against Government Waste:

This website reveals a lot of information about politicians and their relationship to money. You can find out, among other things, how many earmarks that Harry Reid has been responsible for in any given year; or how much an individual Congressman’s wealth has increased or decreased since taking office.

This is an outstanding website which tells the truth about Obama-care and about what the mainstream media is hiding from you:

Politico.com is a fairly neutral site (or, at the very worst, just a little left of center). They have very good informative videos at:

On Obama (if you have not visited this site, you need to check it out). He is selling a DVD on this site as well called Media Malpractice; I have not viewed it yet, except pieces which I have seen played on tv and on the internet. It looks pretty good to me.

We watch FOX so you don't have to). Be clear on this; they do not want you to watch FoxNews.

Conservative Review
Issue #151	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	November 7, 2010