"American Narcissus"

I think anyone who has been following Obama's career over the last few years knows he has a bit of an ego. It was alluded to about a month ago by Time magazine's editor-at-large Mark Halperin, who gave the following devastating indictment of his administration:

With the exception of core Obama Administration loyalists, most politically engaged elites have reached the same conclusions: the White House is in over its head, isolated, insular, arrogant and clueless about how to get along with or persuade members of Congress, the media, the business community or working-class voters. This view is held by Fox News pundits, executives and anchors at the major old-media outlets, reporters who cover the White House, Democratic and Republican congressional leaders and governors, many Democratic business people and lawyers who raised big money for Obama in 2008, and even some members of the Administration just beyond the inner circle.

Of course, there are many factors that have contributed to the slow-motion train wreck alternately known as the Obama administration. But Weekly Standard reporter Jonathan Last seems to have put his finger on one of the most significant factors in this excellent article called "American Narcissus." Last makes the point that Obama is one of the most astonishingly narcissistic politicians our country has ever seen, and he does in a devastatingly effective manner by using quote after quote from Obama himself and from numerous individuals close to him. On top of this is an opinion article from the Fox News website called "The Trip About Nothing," which details the utter ineffectiveness of Obama's recent trip to Asia. The final sentence contains this modified quote from Winston Churchill: "An empty plane arrived in Asia, and when the door was opened, Mr. Obama got out."

Election 2010 Awards

Here are my Election 2010 awards:

1. Most Surprising House Result: A tie between Illinois District 8 and Texas District 27. In the Illinois race, Democrat Melissa Bean was no longer considered vulnerable after she drew an underfunded, unemployed Tea Party candidate named Joe Walsh as her Republican opponent. Walsh ran a strong grassroots campaign under the radar and stunned her on election night. In the Texas race, Democrat Solomon Ortiz was a 14-term incumbent in a 74% Hispanic district who was not on anyone's list as being even potentially vulnerable until the last few weeks of the campaign, when allegations about ethic violations began to surface. (It should be noted that both these races are very close and neither have been officially certified yet.)

2. Most Surprising Senate Result: Probably the Alaska Senate race. Again, the results are not finalized yet, but it appears very likely that Lisa Murkowski will win as a write-in candidate -- the first time a write-in candidate has won a Senate election since Strom Thurmond. As much as I dislike Murkowski, this is an impressive feat and one that I did not expect her to pull off.

3. Most Surprising Governor Result: The Illinois governor's race. Democratic incumbent Pat Quinn was extremely unpopular and suffering from an association with the corrupt former governor Rod Blagojevich. Despite trailing badly in polls virtually the entire year, Quinn managed to hold on and narrowly defeat Republican Bill Brady in an otherwise dismal year for Illinois Democrats.

4. Most Satisfying Election Result: The Florida District 8 House race. Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson said on the House floor last year that the Republicans' health care plan was for patients to "die quickly." He aired an especially vicious ad against his Republican opponent Daniel Webster, whom he dubbed "Taliban Dan." The ad took Webster's quotes out of context to make it appear he was saying the opposite of what he really said and to make it appear that he supported the subjugation of women, Taliban style. Apparently being an obnoxious loudmouth and partisan hack doesn't win you votes; Grayson was crushed on election night.

5. Most Disappointing Election Result: Harry Reid's re-election to the U.S. Senate. This one's not even close. For years, Harry Reid has been a thorn in the side of conservatives. His nasty rhetoric, extreme partisanship, and left-wing ideology have not earned him any friends across the aisle and have made him extremely unpopular both in Nevada and in the country at large. Reid has made too many outrageous comments to list here: everything from insensitive comments about blacks and Latinos to calling the President of the U.S. a "loser" to likening ObamaCare to the movement to give blacks the right to vote. Yet, Reid was re-elected by a wider margin than expected on Tuesday.

6. Most Embarrassing Incumbent Loss: Blanche Lincoln's Senate loss in Arkansas. It is rare for an incumbent -- especially a Senate incumbent -- to fall below 40% of the vote. Yet Lincoln managed to scrape together a mere 37% of the vote as she got crushed by Republican John Boozman, after polling as low as 29% earlier in the cycle. Lincoln achieved this feat by alienating the conservative Democrats who had fueled her previous victories by voting in favor of health care reform, while at the same time managing to anger her liberal base by refusing to support a public option.

7. Most Impressive New Member of Congress: Marco Rubio, newly elected Florida senator. Although only in his early 40's, Rubio already has an impressive resume, including a highly influential Speaker of the Florida House. No one gave him a chance when he launched a long-shot primary challenge to sitting Republican governor Charlie Crist last year; running a principled, issues-based campaign, he succeeded in driving Crist out of the party to avoid an embarrassing primary loss and then beating him and Democrat Kendrick Meek soundly in the general election, pulling nearly 50% of the vote in a three-way race! Rubio is one of the most articulate candidates I have ever heard, and he has achieved his success without watering down his conservative message or compromising his Christian faith. I wouldn't be surprised if a presidential bid is in his future.

8. Most Unprincipled Politician: Even in a category this crowded, Charlie Crist stands out. As recently as May of this year, Crist was the self-described conservative Republican governor of Florida running for the U.S. Senate. As the above-mentioned Rubio moved ahead in the polls and Crist realized he was likely to lose the primary, he left the Republican party and launched an independent bid for the Senate -- just a couple of weeks after solemnly promising on national TV that he would stay in the Republican party! As he realized he needed to pull a significant number of Democratic votes to win, he began dramatically shifting his positions on issue after issue. By the end of the campaign, Crist had become the de facto Democrat in the race and had flip-flopped on almost every major issue from abortion to government spending to education to the environment. Calling Crist "unprincipled" is actually putting it charitably.

9. State With the Most Favorable Election Results: This would be a tie between Pennsylvania and Ohio, both of which provided the GOP with significant victories on election night. In Pennsylvania, Republican captured the governor's seat by a comfortable margin and elected a conservative Republican to the Senate -- both were pickups of Democratic seats -- and picked up five Democratic House seats (falling just short in two others). In Ohio, Republicans succeeded in defeating an incumbent Democratic governor who Obama campaigned hard for, and also easily defended an open seat Senate race. In addition, they defeated five Democratic House incumbents, an impressive feat.

10. State With the Most Disappointing Election Results: This would also be a tie between California and Massachusetts. Although both of these states are heavily Democratic, the GOP had high hopes for both this year. In California, Republicans nominated two top-tier, self-funding candidates to run for Senate and governor. Although at times both candidates seemed to be well-positioned to win, both ended up falling well short in the final count. Republicans made a real effort against at least 4 House incumbents in the state as well, but they lost 2 and 2 are currently too close to call. Democrats retain their stranglehold on the U.S. House delegation from the state and on the state legislature. Republicans also had high expectations in Massachusetts, still feeling a bit euphoric from Scott Brown's shocking victory in January. This election brought them back to reality. Their gubernatorial candidate fell well short, foiled by a third-party candidate who split the anti-Democratic vote. They recruited strong candidates to run in several of the state's House districts, including against Barney Frank, but fell well short in all the races. Democrats continue to control all the state's 10 House districts and an overwhelming majority in the state legislature.

11. Most Important Win for Conservatives: This is certainly a matter of opinion, but I would argue that it was the Pennsylvania Senate race. In perhaps no major statewide race in the country was there a sharper ideological contrast between the two candidates. Republican Pat Toomey was a former congressman and president of the Club for Growth who has been a reliable economic and social conservative throughout his career. Democrat Joe Sestak, by contrast, had an extremely left-wing voting record in Congress, which included championing leftist causes like gays in the military, opposing Israel, and bragging about his pro-ObamaCare vote. Democrats knew the stakes of this race, as Obama came numerous times to campaign for Sestak. And the race was closer than expected, which means conservatives dodged a bullet in a Democratic-leaning state.

12. Most Embarrassing Statewide Candidate: Alvin Greene, Democratic candidate for Senate in South Carolina. This unemployed military veteran living in his parents' basement somehow managed to win the Democratic primary with 59% of the vote, despite never spending a dime or holding a single campaign event. Despite facing felony charges relating to pornography, Greene soldiered on during the campaign, proposing such "out of the box" job creation ideas as making action figures of himself to sell to the public. Listening to him speak and do interviews was almost painful to watch. In the end, however, he managed to get a whopping 28% of South Carolinians to vote for him.

13. Biggest Waste of Money by a Political Candidate: This award has to go to Meg Whitman, GOP candidate for governor in California. Whitman spent nearly $150 million of her own personal fortune -- a record -- on her gubernatorial bid, yet (with final results still pending) she appears to have barely gotten over 40% of the vote and lost by over 1 million votes. This is proof positive that you cannot buy an election, especially when you are running in a state that is not a good ideological fit for your candidacy.

14. Least Gracious Winning Candidate: This would have to be a tie between two delightful public servants -- Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Congressman Jim Moran of Virginia. Frank, upon winning a tough race against Republican Sean Bielat, gave an angry victory speech in which he lashed out against Fox News and other favorite liberal bogeymen and complained that his GOP challenger and other Republicans had run campaigns "beneath the dignity of democracy." Er, yeah. Thank goodness for congressmen like Frank, who has respected the dignity of democracy by allowing his previous gay partners to grow pot and run prostitution services out of his house. And then there's Congressman Moran, who refused to take an election night concession phone call from his opponent. How dare you challenge me? Don't you know I'm congressman for life?

15. Most Underreported Story of the Election: The increasing ethnic diversity of the Republican Party. Like Martin Luther King Jr., I am tired of liberals focusing more on the color of people's skin than the content of their character, and I think the media's obsession with racial diversity is harmful to our country. Still, it is important to point out the increasing diversity of elected Republicans, because it shows how ridiculous the charges of racism are against conservatives in general and the Tea Party movement in particular. For the first time since 2000, there is now a black Republican member of Congress -- in fact there are two. Allen West defeated a Democratic incumbent in a House race in South Florida, and Tim Scott won 72% of the vote in a primary runoff against Strom Thurmond's son and then easily won the general election in a heavily white and Republican district in South Carolina. Scott and West were both interviewed on Hannity last night, and I was impressed with how eloquently they articulated conservative principles. Numerous other black conservatives ran in House races around the country but came up short.

Many other conservative minorities were also elected on Tuesday. Indian-American Nikki Haley, another very articulate conservative, became the first woman and the first minority to be elected governor of South Carolina; she joins fellow Indian-American conservative Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. Despite Harry Reid's comment that he couldn't imagine how any Hispanics could be Republicans, many conservative Hispanics won on Tuesday. Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants and an outspoken proponent of limited government, won a resounding victory in the Florida Senate race, while South Florida elected a new Cuban Republican congressman, David Rivera. Two other Hispanic conservatives won resounding victories in key governor's races -- Susana Martinez in New Mexico and Brian Sandoval in Nevada -- while Hispanic conservatives picked up Democratic House seats in Washington, Idaho, and Texas. And many conservative women were elected to the House, including in New York, Tennessee, North Carolina, Florida, Missouri, Alabama, Washington, and South Dakota. So much for the Republican party only electing white males.

Election 2010 -- Senate & Governor Focus

As I watched the election results, one of my first reactions was to wonder why the GOP wave was manifesting itself so much more strongly in the House results than in the Senate & governor's race results. In House race after House race, GOP candidates were generally outperforming expectations -- winning all the races they were expected to win and also picking up some unexpected seats along the way. By contrast, in many of the statewide races the GOP was performing no better than expected, and in some cases seemed to be underperforming. While they were sweeping into a sizable majority in the House, Republicans did not even come close to taking control of the Senate. They fell short in a number of statewide races which they were considered at least even money to win, including the Colorado and Nevada Senate races and the Illinois and Oregon governor's races. They also underperformed their expected percentage of the vote in several other key races, including the Pennsylvania, California, and West Virginia Senate races and the Ohio and Maine governor's races. I thought this was rather strange, since close statewide races usually all trend in the same direction in wave elections.

There are a few things to remember when comparing House results to Senate and other statewide results, however. First, every 2 years all 435 House seats are up for election, while only 1/3 of the total number of Senate seats are up for election. In the House, all the newly-elected congressmen swept in during the Democratic waves of 2006 and 2008 were now facing the voters in a very different political climate. By contrast, none of the newly-elected senators from 2006 and 2008 were facing the voters. Instead, the senators facing the voters were those last elected in 2004, a relatively good year for the GOP. The Republicans had a number of vulnerable seats of their own to defend (including five tough open seats), and a very limited number of pickup opportunities. Of the 19 seats that Democrats were defending this year, 13 of them were in states that have not supported a Republican presidential candidate in more than 20 years, and 14 were in states that Obama carried by more than 10 points. Thus, from the beginning the playing field was heavily stacked against the GOP in the Senate, which is why political analysts early in 2009 initially expected the Democrats to actually increase their Senate majority in the 2010 elections. Thus, the outcome of the House races gave us a much more accurate sense of the overall mood of the country than did the Senate races, and from this perspective it is impressive that the Republicans managed to pick up as many seats as they did in the Senate.

Second, heavy turnout in Democratic strongholds in the large cities enabled the Democratic candidates to stay close or even win in many statewide races, despite a strong trend toward Republicans in the suburban and rural areas of those states. This explains why, for example, Democrats were able to dominate the New York statewide races and stay so close in the Illinois Senate and governor races, the Ohio governor race, and the Pennsylvania Senate race, despite losing 4-6 House seats in EACH of those states. Obama worked hard to turn out the liberal urban vote in places like Philadelphia, Chicago, Cleveland, and New York City in the final weeks of the campaign, and while this had no impact on the House vote (since it was heavily concentrated in a few safe Democratic districts), it helped offset GOP enthusiasm on the statewide level.

Finally, the Republicans missed some golden pickup opportunities in the Senate due to the failures and gaffes of their candidates. There seems little doubt that campaign missteps and controversies from her past made Christine O'Donnell's big loss in Delaware seem almost a foregone conclusion. Republicans were unable to find top-tier candidates to run for the top offices in New York, enabling Democrats to get over 60% of the vote in both the Senate races and the governor's race. As strongly as I supported Ken Buck in Colorado, Sharron Angle in Nevada, and Joe Miller in Alaska, they all proved to be weak and gaffe-prone candidates who fumbled races that should have been clear GOP wins. This does not mean that Tea Party candidates can't win -- insurgent conservative candidates like Marco Rubio of Florida, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, and Rand Paul of Kentucky proved that. But what it does demonstrate is that candidate quality matters, even in a highly favorable political climate. While the Tea Party movement had a very positive impact on the election in favor of the Republicans, it needs to work harder to nominate conservatives who are articulate and capable of persuading independents and swing voters if it wants to maximize its effectiveness.

Still, despite the tough playing field and missteps by some of their candidates, conservatives have a lot of things to cheer about in the outcome of the Senate and governor races. In the Senate, Republicans succeeded in comfortably holding all of their own seats, despite having to defend five open seats in swing states (Kentucky, Missouri, Florida, New Hampshire, & Ohio) and two vulnerable incumbents of their own (in Louisiana and North Carolina). All of the new senators from the above mentioned swing states, as well as additional new ones from Utah and Kansas, should be strong conservative voices in Congress, and in several cases, the newly elected Republican senator is a significant improvement over the outgoing one. Rob Portman of Ohio and Marco Rubio of Florida will both be much more consistent conservative voices than were their predecessors, George Voinovich and Mel Martinez, respectively. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Roy Blunt of Missouri, and Mike Lee of Utah should also be at least marginally better than their predecessors.

In addition, all of the six new Republican senators elected in previously Democratic seats will be a marked improvement for the conservative cause. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania is a principled economic and social conservative who is light years better than both the previous occupant of the seat, Arlen Specter, and the far-left Democrat he defeated, Joe Sestak. Conservative businessman Ron Johnson defeated a deeply entrenched incumbent who is also a darling of the progressive movement, Russ Feingold. Dan Coats of Indiana, John Hoeven of North Dakota, and John Boozman of Arkansas are all genuine conservatives who replaced pseudo-conservative Democratic senators Evan Bayh, Byron Dorgan, and Blanche Lincoln, respectively. These senators talked a moderate game to their constituents back home, but were reliable votes for the Obama agenda when in Washington. The only new GOP senator who is likely to disappoint conservatives is Mark Kirk of Illinois, but even he will be a huge improvement over his predecessors Roland Burris and Barack Obama.

The governor's races are much the same story. Some races, such as those in Illinois, Oregon, Minnesota, and Connecticut (results not yet official on those last two), were agonizingly close but slipped through the fingers of Republicans. Colorado, Maryland, and California proved to be big busts, and the Republican candidate in New York lost by an embarrassing margin. Yet the Republicans did very well in most of the key swing states that will decide the 2012 presidential election. They made a huge resurgence in traditionally Democratic Michigan and Pennsylvania, winning both governor's races by sizable margins (granted, both GOP candidates are fairly moderate). More conservative GOP candidates eked out narrow wins in two other key states rich in electoral votes, Florida and Ohio, and the GOP also swept all other top offices in those two states. In Wisconsin, Scott Walker headed a strong swing to the GOP at all levels of government in the state. Republicans maintained their lock on Southern governorships, dominating races in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Texas, and Tennessee. Of special note from this list is Nikki Haley of South Carolina, an exceptionally articulate Indian-American woman and a rising star in the conservative movement. Jan Brewer and Susana Martinez were propelled to big victories in Arizona and New Mexico partly on the strength of their commitment to get tough on illegal immigration; Martinez joins fellow Hispanic GOP governor Brian Sandoval who won big in Democratic-leaning Nevada. Only in New England did the GOP significantly underperform expectations, losing 5 of the 6 governorships in the region, all of them by close margins (with Vermont and Connecticut still not officially decided). Maine was the exception to the rule, electing Tea Party Republican Paul LePage by a narrow margin.

The Republicans' success in many of these key governor's races will stand them in good stead in the future. Successful governors have the opportunity to practically implement conservative ideas, and thus often become the leaders of the party's agenda. Successful presidents (Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush) are often former governors, and thus the current crop of Republican governors will likely provide the party with excellent presidential prospects in the future. Also, governors can provide help to their party's candidate in presidential elections and, along with state legislatures, have a great deal of influence over congressional redistricting in most states.

Election 2010 Links

Here are some interesting articles regarding the outcome of Election 2010:

Charles Krauthammer: "A Return to the Norm"

Peggy Noonan: "Americans Vote for Maturity"

Jonah Goldberg: "Defeat, Then Denial"

Sean Trende: "Biggest GOP Gain in Statehouses"

Election 2010 -- House Focus

So the results are largely in for Election 2010, although there are several House races and a couple of Senate and governor races that have yet to be officially called. Overall, it looks as though the GOP is going to end up with a net gain of about 64 seats in the U.S. House, for a 243 seat majority. This is a significantly larger swing than they enjoyed in the 1994 election, when the GOP only gained 52 seats, and gives them the largest majority they have had in the House since the 1940's. Their gain more than offsets the total gains Democrats made in the House in the past two elections in 2006 and 2008. In addition, the Republicans have apparently picked up 6 seats in the U.S. Senate, assuming that Washington ends up going for the Democrat and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska remains a Republican. This is a smaller haul than the 8-seat pickup the GOP enjoyed in 1994, and gives them 47 seats in the new Senate. Finally, the GOP has a net gain of at least 6 governorships, with several races that have still not been determined, which means they will hold at least 29 of the 50 governorships. Included in those governorships are some of the most important swing states in the country -- Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. And they have apparently gained more than 600 state legislative seats and taken new majorities in more than 19 legislatures, which has dramatic consequences for congressional redistricting.

The Republicans' most impressive performance on Tuesday was in the House. They took almost all of the "low-hanging fruit" -- the seats they were expected to win -- but also picked up a number of more difficult seats that they were not favored to win. They ousted a sizable number of long-time House incumbents, some of whom were powerful committee chairmen -- Rick Boucher (VA), Ike Skelton (MO), John Spratt (SC), James Oberstar (MN), Gene Taylor (MS), Chet Edwards (TX), Allen Boyd (FL), and possibly Solomon Ortiz (TX). In addition, they came up agonizingly short in a number of other races -- there were probably at least another 12-15 seats that they lost by just a couple thousand votes or less.

Looking more closely at the anatomy of the House gains, the GOP did especially well in open seate races. Of the 16 Democratic-held open seats considered competitive, the GOP won 14 of the 16. The only two they lost were Democratic-leaning seats in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. They also lost only one of their own open seats -- in heavily Democratic Delaware -- despite facing some tough challenges in several other Republican-held open seats in Illinois, Florida, Arizona, and Michigan. GOP incumbents also performed extremely well. Only 2 lost, and both of those were unusual cases. One, Anh Cao of Louisiana, won a 74% black district in a fluke runoff election in December 2008 with extremely low turnout, defeating a congressman under a huge ethical cloud. The other one was Charles Djou of Hawaii, who captured a heavily Democratic seat in a special election in May by winning 40% of the vote in a three-way race. All other GOP incumbents won by comfortable margins.

There was at least one Democratic House incumbent who lost in every region of the country, but by far the majority of those losing incumbents were in the South and the Great Lakes/Rust Belt regions. The biggest concentration of incumbent losses were in a belt stretching from Wisconsin across the Great Lakes states to Pennsylvania and New York. Four incumbents lost in New York, four in Pennsylvania, five in Ohio, one in Indiana, one in Michigan, four in Illinois, and one in Wisconsin, totaling 20 seats. The Democrats also lost four incumbents in Florida, three in Texas, and another three (possibly four, pending a recount) in Virginia, as well as a total 7 in a band of Deep South states stretching from North Carolina to Mississippi and Tennessee. In the Rocky Mountain region, they lost two incumbents each in Colorado and Arizona. On the other hand, New England was a bust, with only one incumbent losing in New Hampshire. And the Democrats may hold their incumbent losses on the West Coast to only one as well, with at least a couple of races undecided.

A large variety of Democratic incumbents lost. Voting against Obama's agenda did not protect many incumbents in heavily Republican districts -- Gene Taylor and Travis Childers of Mississippi, Jim Marshall of Georgia, Bobby Bright of Alabama, Lincoln Davis of Tennessee, and Walt Minnick of Idaho all lost, despite their conservative voting records. However, a large number of liberal Democratic incumbents lost as well -- among them Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania, Phil Hare of Illinois, Steve Kagen of Wisconsin, John Hall of New York, Mary Jo Kilroy of Ohio, Tom Perriello of Virginia, Alan Grayson and Ron Klein of Florida, and Mark Schauer of Michigan. The outcome of the House races proved that a financial advantage is not enough to guarantee a member's re-election if voters are unhappy with that member's performance. The five Democratic incumbents who were the biggest recipients of spending by outside liberal groups (mostly union groups) all lost -- Tom Perriello of Virginia, Mark Schauer of Michigan, Dina Titus of Nevada, John Boccieri of Ohio, and Harry Teague of New Mexico. One clear pattern that emerged from the election was the relationship between a district's presidential voting habits and their House vote this year. My rough estimate is that about half of the Republican pickups this year came in districts that supported McCain in 2008, and a large majority came in districts that supported Bush in 2004. Republicans did win in a few Democratic-leaning districts, such as James Oberstar's seat in Minnesota, Phil Hare's seat in Illinois, and open seats in New Hampshire and suburban Philadelphia, but for the most part their wins came on Republican-friendly turf. While this explains some of the GOP disappointments in New England and the West Coast, it also may bode well for an enduring majority in the House. With so many Republican seats held in Republican-friendly districts, it will be that much harder for those incumbents to be defeated in the future.

In this post that I wrote right after the Democrats pushed ObamaCare through the House in March, I listed 47 Democrats from districts that voted for Bush in 2004 who voted for ObamaCare and said that a large majority of them had to go. Well, looking back at that list, 33 of those 47 were defeated either in the primary or the general election -- around 70% (and that is not even counting two others whose races have not yet been decided). That's a pretty high casualty rate! Also, last week I listed 35 liberal Democrats in competitive races that I especially wanted to see defeated. Of those 35, at least 22 were defeated, with three others in close races that have not yet been called. That's a 63% casualty rate -- again very high and very satisfying. Overall, I think the American people sent a pretty loud message, and it remains to be seen whether the Democrats have heard and understood that message.

This post has focused primarily on the House results. I will make another post soon discussing the Senate and governor's race results, as well as analyzing how accurate my predictions were. Stay tuned!

Update #3

Well...not a huge number of statewide races have been called since my last post. Nikki Haley did survive in South Carolina, and Russ Feingold lost to Ron Johnson in Wisconsin. The GOP seems poised to win the close governor's races in Ohio and Florida and the close Senate races in Pennsylvania and Illinois. The Illinois governor race is much closer than I expected and it's questionable whether Bill Brady can pull it out for the GOP. Barbara Boxer is projected to win in California; this doesn't surprise me, but the fact that it was called so early does. The GOP is trailing right now in the Colorado Senate race, but apparently some of the most Republican areas of the state have not yet been counted. Again, the news in these statewide races is good, but not great.

In contrast, the news in the House races IS pretty great. A LOT of Democratic incumbents are going down in the South and the Midwest. Five seats lost in Pennsylvania and another five lost in Ohio, at least three in Virginia, at least three and maybe four in Illinois -- we're talking 16 or 17 losses just in FOUR states. I think the GOP is on track for a pickup of over 60 seats -- maybe close to the 68 I predicted this morning. Democrats running in districts carried by McCain are doing especially badly.

I'm not particularly encouraged by the news I've heard from Nevada so far -- from what I'm hearing Democratic turnout has been high and that could spell doom for Angle. No matter how many other seats the Republican pick up, it will be a big disappointment if Reid hangs on.

Given the apparent GOP bust in California, I'm also doubtful now that the GOP can pull things out in the Senate race in Washington state. The early vote shows Rossi well ahead, but it is all from the more conservative rural areas. Heavily Democratic King County has not yet reported.

Update #2

As the returns continue to pour in...overall the Republicans are meeting but not exceeding expectations. They're winning most of the House races they should win, but not by overwhelming margins. They're not winning some of the longshots that could have portended massive 70+ seat gains. They're probably on track to win about 60 seats or so. The results look great for the GOP in Virginia, Ohio, and Florida House races especially. The results are disappointing in North Carolina, where most of the vulnerable Democrats are squeaking out wins.

It's disappointing that the Pennsylvania Senate race hasn't been called yet. But the Pennsylvania governor's race has been called for the Republican, and Toomey is only running about three percentage points behind the gubernatorial candidate Corbett, so I think it's likely Toomey will squeak it out, probably by a closer margin than expected. In Illinois the Republicans appear to be trailing, but apparently the early vote is mostly from heavily Democratic Chicago. I'm very surprised with how close the South Carolina governor's race is. I thought Nikki Haley would win that by a wide margin, as pre-election polls were clearly suggesting. The Ohio and Florida governor's races are also closer than I would like, but I think the Republicans will be able to win both of them. And the Democrat has won the Massachusetts governor's race -- this is a disappointment. I went out on a limb and predicted a come-from-behind GOP win in this race. However, I think the GOP might win the governor's race in Connecticut -- this was a come-from-behind win that may yet materialize.

Again -- not the tsunami I thought, but still a solid night for the GOP so far. But a lot of big races still to be decided -- Colorado, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Nevada, Washington, Wisconsin, etc.

As the Early Returns Come In....

The early results look very good, but not fantastic for the GOP. It's a little disappointing to see the Delaware and Connecticut Senate races called so early for the Democrats, and there have been disconcerting rumors swirling about Harry Reid doing very well in the early vote in Nevada. Also, just seeing now that the West Virginia Senate race has been called for Democrat Joe Manchin. None of these races are really surprising, but I was definitely holding out hope for West Virginia at least, and possibly Connecticut too.

On the other hand, the House results look pretty good. Democratic incumbents Tom Perriello and Suzanne Kosmas going down...good news but not shocking. 100-term Democrat Rick Boucher has also lost...that is surprising and excellent news. Also, the GOP looks in good shape to defeat Baron Hill and is close against Joe Donnelly and Ben Chandler. Most analysts thought Donnelly and Chandler would hold on, so either of them losing would be a great sign.

Mixed bag so far...good but not the blowout I was hoping for.

More later....

What to Watch For on Election Night

I was planning to put together a quick election night guide which shows you what races to keep an eye on in each state as the polls close and the night progresses. That way, when you watch the results come in, you can know what signs to look for in order to determine how well the Republicans are doing compared with expectations. However, I found two good election guides online, so there's no point in me taking the time to make my own.

Here is one, put together by Nate Silver. Silver is a liberal -- but a very smart and honest one. Check it out here.

And here is another good one from the conservative-leaning Washington Examiner.

I was originally thinking about live blogging the elections. I don't think I'll be doing that. However, I will be posting regular updates throughout the evening and commenting on some results -- so check in regularly if you're a political junkie!

Final House Predictions

Here are my final U.S. House predictions (drum roll please). Like pretty much everyone else, I'm seeing strong movement toward the Republicans in the final week or two. Race by race, the numbers are looking terrible for the Democrats, with literally dozens of seats in play that were thought to be safe for the Democrats just a few short weeks ago. Another sign that the wave is coming is in the final Gallup poll. Usually the generic ballot question tightens as we move toward election day, but Gallup is showing a huge margin of 15 points in favor of the Republicans! Obviously, if this number is even close to right, it portends huge gains for the GOP today. (And Gallup has an excellent track record of accurately predicting House results with their generic ballot numbers.) Here's more commentary from Gallup:

"Taking Gallup's final survey's margin of error into account, the historical model predicts that the Republicans could gain anywhere from 60 seats on up, with gains well beyond that possible. It should be noted, however, that this year's 15-point gap in favor of the Republican candidates among likely voters is unprecedented in Gallup polling and could result in the largest Republican margin in House voting in several generations."

Wow.

Other prognosticators have also commented on the very real possibility of stratospheric Republican gains. Nate Silver, a Democratic-leaning political and statistics guru, also provided a possible blowout scenario and 5 reasons why this is possible here.

I have made my best effort, given time constraints, to predict the outcome of all the House races. I am confident that at least some of these picks will be wrong, because there is limited or non-existent polling in many of these races. Also, in a wave election like this, there are always seats that stay beneath the radar and end up being huge surprises on election night. We saw it in 2006, and we will see it again this year. But I think (and hope) that my overall net gain prediction is close to accurate. I am predicting the Republicans will pick up 71 Democratic-held seats, but lose 3 of their own, for a net gain of 68 seats. This is a bold prediction, but not as much out of line as you might think from other prognosticators. For example, Stu Rothenberg is projecting 55-65 seat gains, and RealClearPolitics has a pick-up range from 45 to 89, with an average of 67.

Here are the likely or certain Republican pickups:

1. Open (Gordon) (TN)
2. Open (Melancon) (LA)
3. Open (Snyder) (AR)
4. Open (Massa) (NY)
5. Open (Ellsworth) (IN)
6. Open (Moore) (KS)
7. Debbie Halvorson (IL)
8. Mary Jo Kilroy (OH)


And the competitive seats that lean toward a Republican pickup:

1. Open (Tanner) (TN)
2. Betsy Markey (CO)
3. Suzanne Kosmas (FL)
4. Chet Edwards (TX)
5. Steve Driehaus (OH)
6. Kathy Dahlkemper (PA)
7. Alan Grayson (FL)
8. Allen Boyd (FL)
9. Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ)
10. Glenn Nye (VA)
11. Steve Kagen (WI)
12. Jim Marshall (GA)
13. Tom Perriello (VA)
14. Open (Stupak) (MI)
15. Carol Shea-Porter (NH)
16. Frank Kratovil (MD)
17. Harry Teague (NM)
18. John Boccieri (OH)
19. Open (Baird) (WA)
20. Travis Childers (MS)
21. Earl Pomeroy (ND)
22. Open (Obey) (WI)
23. Open (Berry) (AR)
24. Harry Mitchell (AZ)
25. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD)
26. John Spratt (SC)
27. Phil Hare (IL)
28. Paul Kanjorski (PA)
29. Dina Titus (NV)

And the seats that are tossups which I am predicting to go narrowly for the GOP:

1. Open (Sestak) (PA)
2. Baron Hill (IN)
3. Zack Space (OH)
4. John Hall (NY)
5. John Salazar (CO)
6. Bill Foster (IL)
7. John Adler (NJ)
8. Patrick Murphy (PA)
9. Bill Owens (NY)
10. Jerry McNerney (CA)
11. Ron Klein (FL)
12. Chris Carney (PA)
13. Lincoln Davis (TN)
14. Scott Murphy (NY)
15. Larry Kissell (NC)
16. Mark Schauer (MI)
17. Open (Mollohan) (WV)
18. Ciro Rodriguez (TX)
19. Open (Hodes) (NH)
20. Bobby Bright (AL)
21. Sanford Bishop (GA)
22. Michael Arcuri (NY)
23. Kurt Schrader (OR)
24. Ike Skelton (MO)
25. Charlie Wilson (OH)
26. Gene Taylor (MS)
27. Jim Costa (CA)
28. Ben Chandler (KY)
29. Joe Donnelly (IN)
30. Martin Heinrich (NM)
31. Mike McIntyre (NC)
32. Bob Etheridge (NC)
33. James Oberstar (MN)
34. Ed Perlmutter (CO)

And the tossup seats which I am predicting to go narrowly to the Democrats:

1. Gabrielle Giffords (AZ)
2. Walt Minnick (ID)
3. Open (Delahunt) (MA)
4. Raul Grijalva (AZ)
5. Gerry Connolly (VA)
6. Tim Bishop (NY)
7. Rick Boucher (VA)
8. Mark Critz (PA)
9. Christopher Murphy (CT)
10. Jim Himes (CT)
11. Gary Peters (MI)
12. Loretta Sanchez (CA)
13. Heath Shuler (NC)
14. Ron Kind (WI)
15. Chellie Pingree (ME)
16. Dennis Cardoza (CA)
17. Melissa Bean (IL)
18. Rick Larsen (WA)

And the competitive seats that lean toward a Democratic hold:

1. Dan Maffei (NY)
2. Mike McMahon (NY)
3. Leonard Boswell (IA)
4. Tim Walz (MN)
5. Jason Altmire (PA)
6. John Yarmuth (KY)
7. Maurice Hinchey (NY)
8. Adam Smith (WA)
9. Solomon Ortiz (TX)
10. Michael Michaud (ME)
11. Jim Matheson (UT)
12. Frank Pallone (NJ)
13. Open (Rhode Island) (RI)

And the likely Democratic holds (where an upset is at least possible):

1. Bruce Braley (IA)
2. Betty Sutton (OH)
3. Dave Loebsack (IA)
4. Nick Rahall (WV)
5. Tim Holden (PA)
6. Rush Holt (NJ)
7. Russ Carnahan (MO)
8. Barney Frank (MA)
9. John Barrow (GA)
10. Mike Ross (AR)
11. Carolyn McCarthy (NY)
12. Peter DeFazio (OR)
13. Brad Miller (NC)
14. Steve Israel (NY)
15. Anthony Weiner (NY)

All in all, this adds up to 117 Democratic-held seats that are competitive or potentially competitive. I'm predicting the GOP will pick up 71 of those seats.

On the Republican side, there are a LOT fewer seats in play. I am predicting the Democrats will easily pick up the seat of Joseph Cao (LA). Mike Castle's open seat in Delaware leans toward the Democrats. And Mark Kirk's open seat in Illinois is a tossup race that I think the Democrats will narrowly win. That adds up to 3 losses.

A few other Republican seats are vulnerable, but I think the GOP will hold on. In Hawaii, Charles Djou's race is a tossup that I think the GOP will narrowly hold. There are three competitive seats that lean toward the Republicans: Dan Lungren (CA), Open (Diaz-Balart) (FL), and Open (Shadegg) (AZ). And there are five additional seats that are likely GOP holds: Charlie Dent (PA), Open (Putnam) (FL), Dave Reichert (WA), Open (Griffith) (AL), and Michele Bachmann (MN).

That adds up to 12 competitive or potentially competitive GOP-held seats, 3 of which I think they will lose.

In less than 24 hours, we will know the outcome of most of these races....

Final Senate and Governor Predictions

I have made my final Senate and governor predictions. You can access the Senate predictions here and the governor predictions here. (The links on the left side of the page are also current.)

To summarize: I am predicting a 9-seat pickup for the GOP, bringing them to 50 seats in the Senate. The Democrats will still retain the majority (assuming Independent Joe Lieberman continues to caucus with the Democrats) because Vice-President Joe Biden will be the deciding vote for organizing the Senate. I predict the GOP will pick up seats in North Dakota, Indiana, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Illinois, Nevada, Colorado, and Washington. However, they will lose close races in California and West Virginia, as well as not-so-close races in Connecticut and Delaware. Also, the GOP will hold all their previously held seats, including Kentucky and Missouri.

In the governor's races, the GOP will pick up a net of 9 seats, bringing them to a total of 33 out of 50 governorships. The Democrats will lose a net of 10 and end up with 16 governorships, with the remaining one held by Independent Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island. The GOP will win competitive races in Minnesota, Florida, Oregon, Massachusetts, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Maine, Illinois, Georgia, and Texas, as well as less competitive races in Michigan, Iowa, and Nevada. However, they will come up short in Connecticut, Colorado, Vermont, California, Hawaii, New Hampshire, and Maryland.

If my predictions are correct, it will be a very good night for the GOP!

Stay tuned for my final House predictions and some other thoughts on the election tomorrow....

UPDATE: I have made one additional update to my governor's predictions -- have now moved Connecticut into the GOP column. This results in a net GOP pickup of 10 seats and a net loss of 11 for the Democrats.

I Guess "Post-Partisan Healer" Means Different Things to Different People

Obama's latest quotes:

In an interview on a Spanish-speaking radio station, he said that Latinos need to "punish their enemies" in the upcoming election by voting against Republicans.

At a recent rally, he said that after the election the Republicans could cooperate with his agenda if they wanted to, but they would have to "sit in the back." (Think Rosa Parks.)

This is on top of earlier comments about how Republicans don't want blacks to vote and video appeals to the "blacks and Latinos that powered my 2008 victory."

This president is a post-partisan, post-racial healer all right...in the mold of Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton, and David Duke. He is using racial identity politics to blatantly divide our country. He is exacerbating racial grievances by pitting one group of Americans against another, provoking suspicion and mistrust. He is using Nixonian terms like "enemies" to apply to his political opponents. He is a national embarrassment.

The Red Corner of Montgomery County

Check out this recent article from The Washington Post, which profiles my hometown of Damascus, MD, and how dramatically it differs culturally and politically from the rest of Montgomery County. I'm sure our county will once again elect a slate of left-wing candidates to local, state, and federal offices, but thankfully the town I live in won't be to blame for that....

Not All Democrats Are Created Equal

As we approach Election Day, there has been a lot of speculation about how many House (and Senate) seats the Democrats are going to lose. However, I think it's important to point out that not all Democrats are created equal. While pretty much all the Democrats in the Senate are liberal (every single one voted for ObamaCare), there is a small cadre of genuinely moderate-to-conservative Democrats in the House. As Obama and Pelosi have lurched the Democratic agenda farther and farther to the left, these conservative Democrats -- almost all from the South -- are finding themselves in greater and greater jeopardy merely as a result of the "D" after their name on the ballot.

Now, I won't be shedding tears over any Democrat who loses his seat next week, no matter how conservative. After all, even the most conservative Democrats did choose to enable a Democratic majority which has advanced a radically progressive agenda and to vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. However, as I have said before, when it comes to politics I am a conservative first and a Republican second. I want to see conservative gains in Congress, not merely Republican gains. I don't want to see all Democrats lose indiscriminately -- I want to see those specific Democrats lose who have carried water for the Obama/Pelosi agenda and advanced policies like ObamaCare and cap-and-trade in defiance of the will of their constituents. As the results roll in on election night and the House losses begin to add up for the Democrats, I will be looking beyond the raw numbers to see which types of Democrats are being defeated. If many conservative southern Democrats lose while many liberal Democrats from swing districts survive, I will be disappointed -- even if the Republicans take the House comfortably.

This is why it is a little disappointing to me that the national Republican party is spending heavily to defeat conservative Democrats like Gene Taylor and Travis Childers of Mississippi, Mike McIntyre of North Carolina, Lincoln Davis of Tennessee, Bobby Bright of Alabama, and Jim Marshall of Georgia. In one sense, I can understand it. After all, the entire point of the NRCC's existence is to succeed in electing as many Republicans as possible, and these congressmen are not Republicans. However, there are so many competitive House districts this year that the Republican party cannot come close to funding all of them. I would much prefer to see them directing their scarce resources to defeating the Democrats that are responsible for supporting Obama's agenda. After all, Big Labor is focusing its resources on re-electing those specific Democrats who have voted for that agenda -- why aren't Republicans and Republican-leaning groups keeping a similar focus?

I don't see that defeating Democrats like Gene Taylor and Bobby Bright is going to make much difference for conservative principles. Taylor is a long-time conservative who voted to impeach President Clinton way back in the 1990's. Bright scored an astonishing 79% on my congressional scorecard -- higher than many Republicans. All of the Democrats listed above scored well over 50%. Instead, I would like to see the following Democrats defeated on election night (their percentage of conservative votes on my scorecard are in parentheses). They are listed in approximate order of their vulnerability.

Debbie Halvorson (IL) - 25%
Mary Jo Kilroy (OH) - 7%
Betsy Markey (CO) - 29%
Steve Driehaus (OH) - 21%
Kathy Dahlkemper (PA) - 25%
Tom Perriello (VA) - 21%
Paul Kanjorski (PA) - 18%
Earl Pomeroy (ND) - 29%
Alan Grayson (FL) - 11%
Steve Kagen (WI) - 7%
Patrick Murphy (PA) - 11%
John Boccieri (OH) - 29%
Dina Titus (NV) - 21%
Baron Hill (IN) - 29%
John Hall (NY) - 14%
John Salazar (CO) - 21%
Mark Schauer (MI) - 21%
John Spratt (SC) - 21%
Bill Owens (NY)
Gabrielle Giffords (AZ) - 21%
Phil Hare (IL) - 4%
Jerry McNerney (CA) - 18%
Ron Klein (FL) - 18%
Leonard Boswell (IA) - 14%
Ciro Rodriguez (TX) - 25%
Kurt Schrader (OR) - 18%
Sanford Bishop (GA) - 21%
Charlie Wilson (OH) - 29%
Martin Heinrich (NM) - 11%
Tim Bishop (NY) - 11%
Raul Grijalva (AZ) - 0%
Gerry Connolly (VA) - 14%
Gary Peters (MI) - 18%
Loretta Sanchez (CA) - 14%
Tim Walz (MN) - 14%

All of these 35 Democrats voted for ObamaCare (most also voted for cap-and-trade). All of them are being challenged by at least reasonably conservative Republicans. Most of them are well to the left of the conservative or swing districts they represent. All of them are considered vulnerable. If a large percentage of these congressmen do not lose, it will be a disappointing night for me, regardless of what the total number of pickups is for the GOP.

So as you follow the election results next week, keep an eye out for which types of Democrats are losing. That will tell you a lot about the prospects for conservative principles in the next Congress.

A lot of hot air

I moved to Maryland a few months ago.  As I have settled into my new home state, I have quickly learned that the people of Maryland, or at least their elected representatives, seem to like government regulations.  Over the weekend, I got a notice from the Maryland Vehicle Administration that says my car has to be tested for compliance with emissions standards.  According to the notice I received in the mail, the purpose of this test is to reduce "the amount of ground-level ozone in the air we breathe". 

However, the notice also says what to do if your car fails the test. 

• Move your vehicle into a customer parking space, come in the office and speak to the Customer Service Representative on Duty.
• You may apply for a repair waiver after the vehicle fails the test, is repaired, then fails again.
• You must present proof that at least the minimum amount required for the waiver was spent for emissions related repairs.  Refer to the "If Your Vehicle Didn't Pass" brochure or www.marylandmva.com for further information.

In other words, you can still drive a non-compliant vehicle as long as someone tried to fix it.  It's the thought that counts.  My guess is that this ineffective and useless law was passed so the people in office could prove that they had done something to protect the environment.  At least the test only costs $14. 

Odds 'n Ends

I have to mention this gem from Obama at a recent fundraiser:

"Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument do not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared. And the country is scared."

Hmmm. This reminds of another classic quote from Obama from back in 2008:

"[Small town Pennsylvania residents] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

It's kind of hard to avoid the conclusion that Obama is an elitist. He clearly believes facts, science, and intelligence are all on his side, and those who disagree are prejudiced, ignorant, or not thinking clearly. In Obama's world, those who disagree with him are always motivated by irrational fears or xenophobic bitterness. His administration openly smears anyone who dares to question him -- from the Tea Parties to Fox News to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The man who campaigned on bridging our differences and bringing an end to extreme partisanship in Washington has become one of the worst partisan hacks in Washington.

I like The Denver Post's David Harsanyi column on this topic, found on realclearpolitics.com here. Harsanyi is not a social conservative and I don't always agree with him, but I find his sarcasm against the left quite refreshing.

***********************

On another note, one of my favorite liberals, Juan Williams, was recently fired from his position as political analyst for National Public Radio. Williams was fired for making allegedly bigoted comments about Muslims on The O'Reilly Factor a few days ago. Here are those "bigoted" comments:

"I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

The CEO of NPR, Vivian Schiller, later added insult to injury by saying that Williams should have kept his feelings about Muslims between himself and his "psychiatrist."

Even taken out of context, there is nothing bigoted about Williams' comments. He is expressing the feelings that many, probably most, Americans have when flying post-9/11. The comments were true and honest. Given that radical Muslims blew up four planes less than 10 years ago and that those same radical Muslims are still trying to attack us, such concerns are eminently reasonable. When you take Williams' comments in context, however, the ironic thing is that Williams was actually challenging O'Reilly to be more careful and more sensitive in his statements about Muslims.

However, context, honesty, and reasonableness don't matter in the least to the political correctness police, which is becoming stronger and stronger in our country and is threatening to stamp out any kind of honest discourse in the name of "sensitivity." Free speech is being muzzled in the name of tolerance. The left has succeeded in putting numerous topics off limits for debate for anyone who wishes to avoid being labeled as bigoted. Gay rights is one such area. Dare to deviate from liberal orthodoxy on this topic in any way, and you are guaranteed to be branded as a hate-filled anti-gay bigot. Even to advocate for something as reasonable as keeping the traditional definition of marriage, which seemed to be a point of universal agreement in our society just 10 or 15 years ago, now is considered intolerant and homophobic by "polite society." Preaching from the Bible against homosexuality is already illegal under hate crimes legislation in Canada. Does anybody doubt this will happen in the U.S. within a few years as well?

Another area that is off-limits is race relations, especially if you are white. Almost anything you say regarding race and race relations in this country, no matter how innocent, is likely to be taken out of context and used against you. I have been watching Bill O'Reilly for years and I guarantee there is not a racist bone in his body. I remember how viscerally angry he became a few years ago when covering a story about an alternative, non-school sponsored high school prom in Georgia where blacks where prohibited from attending. Bigotry is something he hates with a passion. And yet, this man has been called a racist repeatedly for daring to have honest discussions about race relations on his program. In trying to brand Rush Limbaugh a racist last year, liberals completely manufactured a quote out of thin air, despite the fact that two black men frequently fill in for him on his program and his long-time radio assistant is black. Even Bill and Hillary Clinton were accused of racism back in 2008 for daring to campaign against a black man for president. Liberals deduce all kind of racist code in simple anti-Obama slogans such as "take our country back," a phrase that has nothing to do with race and was used by Howard Dean against the Republicans a few years ago.

Islam is yet another area that is increasingly becoming off-limits for civil discussion. Left-wing editorial after left-wing editorial declared opposition to the Ground Zero mosque (supported by 70% of Americans) to be bigoted and xenophobic. Two members of The View walked off the set when O'Reilly made the undeniably true statement that the Ground Zero mosque should not be built because "Muslims attacked us on 9/11." They claimed his statement was bigoted because he failed to identify these Muslims as "extremists." You see, in today's PC world, it doesn't matter whether what you say is true if it's perceived as insensitive. Facts and truth must take a back seat to tolerance. Of course, tolerance is not really so tolerant after all, since it declares whole categories of speech and thought to be off-limits. Such "tolerance" is the reason that Major Hasan was able to shoot up Fort Hood last year. His military peers and superiors knew that he was a ticking time bomb, but were afraid to say anything negative about him because he was a Muslim and they didn't want to run afoul of the PC police.

Juan Williams is a liberal, but he is an honest liberal and deserves better than how he was treated by NPR. It is scandalous that this left-wing outfit is getting taxpayer money. The Republicans should cut off all taxpayer funding for NPR if they take control of Congress next year. Williams' article about his firing is on foxnews.com and is well worth reading. Check it out here. And I would urge all of my readers: please don't give in to the PC police. It is time that all of us as Americans stood up against this increasing threat to free speech in our country. Don't be afraid to speak out on the issues and to say what you believe. Don't lend your support in any way to politicians and journalists who peddle this pseudo-tolerance.

Updated Predictions for Senate and Governor Races

I've just updated my Senate and governor's race predictions, for any political junkies who are interested.... You can get to them by clicking on the links on the left side of the page.

My Favorite Election Experts

For you political junkies out there...

There are three political experts out there that I really like. I think these three individuals are unmatched when it comes to knowledge of American politics and the ability to effectively analyze polls and election data. They are:

1. Michael Barone of The Washington Examiner.

2. Jay Cost of The Weekly Standard.

3. Sean Trende of realclearpolitics.com.

I will be relying on the insight of these brilliant analysts on election night and in the days leading up to the election. I think they are the best conservative-oriented number crunchers out there. There are some good liberal-oriented number-crunchers too, like Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com.

In Case You Hadn't Noticed, There's An Election Coming Up....

Over the past few weeks, I've been spending a lot of time that I usually spend blogging reading about the 2010 elections, which explains why the posting has been light lately. I think Sean Hannity is not too far off the mark when he says that this is the most important election in our lifetimes. It is incredibly vital that we the people send as strong a message as possible to our government that we will not tolerate the Obama/Reid/Pelosi agenda of reckless spending, higher taxes, ballooning deficits, and socialized health care. In order to send that message, Republicans must perform well on Election Day. They must at least meet, if not exceed, expectations. Anything less than taking over the House represents failure, and I think they also need to at least make it to 49 or 50 seats in the Senate. I would strongly urge my readers not to sit this election out. Vote -- and encourage your family, friends, and co-workers to vote as well. If you have the ability and inclination, donate to or volunteer for competitive races in your state or district. And, most importantly, pray for God to give us wise and honest leaders that will take our country in the right direction.

To me, this election is less about rewarding Republicans and more about punishing Democrats for their massive overreach. The Democrats in Congress, led by President Obama and Speaker Pelosi, have deliberately moved forward on a radical big government agenda, despite a staggering national debt and the strong opposition of a clear majority of the American people. They were warned over and over again, through townhall meetings, polls, rallies, and an overwhelming wave of letters and phone calls from constituents -- yet even many supposedly moderate Blue Dog Democrats ignored the voice of the people. And Obama's deliberate strategy has been to demonize that voice, accusing Tea Partiers and townhall activists of being racists and extremists (not to mention ignorant and stupid). I have not been around the block that many times, but I have never seen such blatant disregard for the will of American voters. Members of Congress need to know that there are consequences for this arrogance. If voters do not send a stinging rebuke on November 2, this disregard for the will of the American people will only get worse in the future. For the sake of our future, we must prove that we are not as stupid and uninformed as they think and that we are prepared to hold them accountable for their actions. Certainly Republicans will disappoint us from time to time if they regain the majority, but we can at least be sure they will stand against the excesses of the Obama Administration and bring back a desperately needed balance to our government.

It is interesting to note how this election is shaping up. By and large, Republicans are the only ones running on issues. They are talking about reducing the deficit, repealing ObamaCare and replacing it with free market solutions, opposing cap-and-trade, reducing taxes and regulations to stimulate the economy, controlling our borders, finding solutions to Social Security, and many other substantive solutions. What are the Democrats running on? Well, individual candidates are not running on their support for ObamaCare, or their support for cap-and-trade, or their support for more spending and higher deficits. Most of them are running away from their records as fast as possible. The only House Democrats talking about ObamaCare and cap-and-trade are the ones who voted against those bills. And of course, they can't run on how they've improved the economy, or created jobs, or fixed the illegal immigration problem, or drained the ethical "swamp" in Washington, or improved partisan gridlock. Instead, by their own admission, the Democrats' almost exclusive strategy is to try to tear down and destroy their GOP opponents in any way possible. They are digging up all sorts of dirt from the past, in some cases turning to stories decades old, and saturating the airwaves with personal attacks. Some of them have been blatantly false, such as Alan Grayson's infamous "Taliban Dan" ad. They can't run on their record, so they are opting for the scorched earth strategy.

Of course, the Obama Administration has not been idle either. Their "strategy" is also to demonize the opposition, and their attacks have become increasingly shrill and partisan as well. The only problem is that they can't seem to decide who the target of this opposition is. It changes on a weekly basis. Over the month or two, they have focused their firepower, in rapid succession, on...John Boehner, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, the Tea Party movement, and, most bizarrely, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (an organization that supports Democrats as well as Republicans). Their claim that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is "threatening democracy" by funding election campaigns with foreign money is so completely devoid of proof that even liberal Bob Schieffer of Face the Nation asked in astonishment, "Three weeks from election day, is this the best you have?" Of course, these attacks are only resulting in increased publicity and fundraising for Obama's targets -- Karl Rove's organization raised more than $14 million in the week following the President's attack. These attacks are doing nothing to help their precarious situation, because they are not talking about what the American people are concerned about. Voters don't care about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, or Karl Rove, or Fox News. They care about jobs and the economy and the deficit and taxes and spending and health care. Obama just looks increasingly partisan and even irrelevant, and is making it next to impossible for Democrats to win over the very independents and moderates they need to be successful in swing districts across the country.

Even Obama and Biden's appeals to their base seem to fall flat. Obama comes across as a lecturer, telling Democrats that "they'd better be motivated" and that he "needs them to be fired up" and saying that if "folks want to take their ball and go home, that just tells me they weren't serious in the first place." Meanwhile, Biden calls out partisan crowds for not showing enough enthusiasm (while also saying he wants to "strangle" Republicans for talking about balancing the budget). Uh, I have news for the White House crowd. You don't get your base excited by telling them to be excited. Passion isn't a switch to be turned off and on at will. Voters are passionate when you give them a reason to be passionate about. They get excited when they see results. And frankly, it's pretty hard to get excited about a 9.6% unemployment rate.

So, yes, the Republicans are going to win big this year. I will be updating my detailed Senate and governor's predictions soon, but suffice it to say that the Republicans will probably at least come close to taking the Senate, and will probably gain around 10 governor's seats as well. Almost all of the nonpartisan forecasters agree that the Democrats will lose the House, and the only question is the margin. I think the margin could be sizable. It's going to get nasty at the end, and Obama and his party are going to do everything possible to destroy GOP candidates, but in the end the "cake is baked." I can't wait for November 2!

The FBI Is Compromising Homeland Security

There are many challenges facing our country today. Unemployment sits at nearly 10%, our deficit and national debt are exploding, our businesses are being taxed and regulated to death, and our first-rate health care system is being taken over by incompetent government bureaucrats. Yet, for all these domestic policy and economic challenges, I feel that the greatest challenge we face as a country is the threat of radical Islam. A bad economy makes our lives miserable and an ever-encroaching federal government reduces our liberties, but radical Islam threatens our very lives and the very existence of our country.

The thing that frustrates me the most about this issue is that so many politicians don't seem to recognize the seriousness of the threat -- or worse, don't seem to feel there is a threat at all. National security should not be a partisan issue. Whether Republican or Democrat, we should all stand united to fight terrorism and radical Islam. Yet, over and over again, terrorism issues become Republican vs. Democrat, conservative vs. liberal -- when they should be America vs. Islamic terrorism. If conservatives are the only ones serious about fighting Islamic terrorism, then we have no chance of winning the fight.

The latest outrage comes from the FBI. Recently the FBI granted a VIP tour of our country's top-secret counterterrorism facilities to Sheikh Kifah Mustapha -- a man with close ties to Hamas and deeply involved in terrorism financing. Apparently this is part of our country's "outreach to the Muslim community." You probably haven't heard anything about this on the news, because the media has been blacking out this story. In fact, an ABC reporter accompanied Mustapha on the tour and filed a report about it, completely omitting any reference to Mustapha's radical terrorist connections. I only found out about it through email updates from Act for America, a grassroots organization founded to fight radical Islam in America. You can read more about this on bigpeace.com (a project founded by Andrew Breitbart) here and here.

I can't say how angry this makes me. Our country's national security is being compromised in the name of tolerance. And no one seems to care -- at least none of our elected officials or media reporters. According to my email from Act for America, many of their members called the FBI to express their concern. The FBI responded rudely and claimed that the story was a lie. Good to know that the FBI not only lets terrorist sympathizers into their top-secret facilities but also lies about it to concerned Americans. Folks, someone at the top approved Mustapha's access, and we need to find out who and why. Here is the letter I sent to my congressman and senators regarding this issue:

I am writing to ask you and your [House or Senate] colleagues to investigate why the FBI invited Sheikh Kifah Mustapha on a VIP tour of the top-secret National Counterterrorism Center. Mustapha has close connections to Hamas, was named an unindicated co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, is at the top of our terrorist watch lists, and recently was dismissed from the Illinois State Police chaplaincy program after failing a background check. There is no way a man like this should be given access to a top-secret counter-terrorism facility. Please encourage your colleagues to speak out on this issue and to launch a congressional investigation to determine how this happened and who is responsible for approving it. I feel strongly that the security of our country MUST be a top priority, and I know you feel the same way.

Sadly, I don't think anyone in the Obama Administration is losing any sleep over this. In fact, I doubt that Obama would have any problem with this. He might have personally approved it, for all I know. Just consider the behavior of Obama and his administration over the past two years when it comes to Islamic terrorism:

1. Attorney General Eric Holder launched an investigation into the CIA for their enhanced interrogation techniques against known terrorists -- techniques that saved thousands of American lives and that were legal at the time they were used. The Obama Administration has made any aggressive forms of interrogation against terrorists illegal. That should help our ability to prevent future terrorist attacks.
2. Obama is trying to shut down our top-notch terrorist facility at Guantanamo Bay, either releasing the terrorists held there or bringing them to the U.S.
3. Attorney General Eric Holder decided to bring Khaleid Sheikh Mohammed to the U.S. to provide him with the full rights of American citizens and a civilian trial in New York City, despite the fact that he had already pleaded guilty in a military tribunal.
4. Obama's Department of Homeland Security stopped using phrases like "acts of terrorism" and "radical Islam," preferring instead more politically correct terminology like "man-caused disasters." How can you defeat an enemy when you won't even acknowledge who you're fighting?
5. Obama's government failed miserably in stopping the Christmas Day bomber. Once he was apprehended, thanks to the fact that his bomb did not detonate as intended, he was interviewed by the FBI for 45 minutes and then was read his Miranda rights, despite the fact he was not an American citizen and the fact that he had current information about terrorist activities. He then clammed up and refused to talk to the FBI or CIA for many weeks.
6. The Fort Hood shooter should have been kicked out the military months earlier due to his radical Islamic beliefs, but his superiors would not take action against him because of a rigorous "tolerance" policy enforced by the top military commanders appointed by Obama. After the massacre, top Obama administration members denied the shooter had connections to radical Islam and said it was an isolated incident. You know, like the Times Square bomber, the Christmas Day bomber, and all those other isolated incidents.
7. Obama spoke out forcefully in favor of a grand Islamic center right next to Ground Zero, despite the fact that the imam behind the project has radical pro-terrorist and anti-American views. In fact, that imam works for our government as part of our "outreach" to the Muslim world.
8. Obama has gone around the world apologizing for America's supposed offenses against the Muslim world under his predecessor.
9. Obama has tied the hands of our troops in Afghanistan. Their restrictive rules of engagement make it next to impossible to aggressively go after Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and a fixed departure date emboldens terrorists even further.
10. Obama has refused to take any action to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons - even tough sanctions. He has continually tried to appease their radical leaders, with no result. He even refused to speak out against their rigged election last year or to defend and support the Iranian citizens protesting for freedom.
11. Obama has openly sided with Palestinian terrorists over our democratic ally Israel. One of Obama first official overseas speeches was to Hamas. His representatives have refused to defend Israel in the U.N., and he has openly snubbed Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.

I could go on and on, but I don't have time. The point is, Islamic terrorists don't fear Obama. In fact, they probably think he secretly sympathizes with them. They are emboldened here and abroad, knowing that there will be no consequences for their actions. Terrorist activity has significantly increased on our soil since Obama took office, including one successful and two nearly-successful attacks. Increasingly, our government associates with "moderate" Muslim leaders and organizations that are actually very radical and militant in their views. Congress hasn't held Obama accountable either. It's only going to get worse, unless we as citizens and voters speak out and make it clear to our elected officials that the War on Terror is a priority for us.