Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Same old, same old

Comments

Does the future hold any chance for states like Wisconsin ending open primaries? The moderate Republicans like them because cross-over voting Democrats help out. Democrats like them because open primaries can lead to weaker opponents. Somehow I doubt Tommy Thompson would have won the Senatorial nomination without an open primary.

Political parties would need to then foot the bill, or have caucuses.

    Mary Sue in reply to Milwaukee. | November 11, 2012 at 7:01 pm

    This is a point we need to seriously consider. WI has a Republican Governor, House and Senate, if anything can be done to end this nonsense now is the time to do it. We can not afford any more retreads and losing candidates in the 2014 midterms in particular. See my post below: Harry Reid must go.

    I understand that Akin was able to win his primary in Missouri due to the open primary there. Since McCaskill was unopposed in the Democratic primary, many Democratic voters may have voeted in the Republican party for Akin, who was considered the weakest opponent for McCaskill.

      huskers-for-palin in reply to tomg. | November 11, 2012 at 10:59 pm

      McCaskill’s associates donated 1.5 million in pro Akin ads to prop him up. They knew he was the weakest candidate.

        Maybe a taste of their own medicine is in order. Kentucky has open primaries, just saying.

          Milwaukee in reply to Mary Sue. | November 12, 2012 at 8:25 am

          No. We can not claim to have character and integrity and play their duplicitous games. The primaries are an opportunity for political parties to pick their candidates, not their candidates opponents. This is a corruption of the process. The solution is to change the process, not participate in it’s corruption. Besides, liberal-progressive-socialist do corruption much better than we do. A socialist activist will bother to vote this way, a principled conservatives won’t bother.

    We need jungle primaries. Take the parties out of it entirely. If you can get enough signatures, you’re on the ballot, regardless of party. If you’re registered to vote, you can cast a ballot. The two top vote getters run head to head in the general.

The higher education bubble has led to a lowering of standards in high schools. Since we are going to push everybody into college, colleges take damn near everybody. One start would be to limit remedial courses to community colleges.

In Colorado college tuition is set at 25% of the actual cost. (Or it was in the late ’70s when I was an undergraduate.) For every dollar borrowed to pay to tuition, taxpayers of Colorado have given up three.

Were it up to me there would be just three standardized tests for high school students: ACT, SAT and GRE. I threw in the SAT for those on the coasts where it is preferred.

My suggestion for cutting higher academic bloat is that any particular state cut the number of freshman college seats for incoming high school seniors by 75% four years from now. Tell the current 8th graders that. Then they either need to really pickup their game or plan on a non-college career. No shame there. Carpenters and beauticians both need special skill sets, training and temperaments for success. Both are honorable careers.

    katasuburi in reply to Milwaukee. | November 12, 2012 at 8:29 am

    If a high school graduates a student who needs remedial education than half the cost of the remedial education should be borne by that high school.

Open forum, eh? Okay; lets try this one on,

The United States should end its membership in the United Nations by passing Ron Paul’s HR 1146,
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1146

Followed by the demand that the UN remove itself from NYC and take up its residence in a more appropriate venue such as Geneva (at the former League of Nations buildings) or, in light of the LARGE mono-voting Muslim bloc which has demonstrated nothing but abject hostility to the USA and Israel, Riyadh, Mecca, or Medina.

The only way the Republican establishment will listen to conservatives is if we quit the Republican party. Money talks.

    The problem with that, is that state election/ballot-access laws are HEAVILY biased against all challengers to the two major parties.

    IMO, the better approach is to infiltrate the GOP and take over from the RINOs and professional/political complex operatives, so WE can work around those biases on the way to ending them.

    Time to move from getting mad, to getting even in a Gramsci-esque “long march” of our own.

    Ragspierre in reply to McNaughton. | November 11, 2012 at 7:12 pm

    Been there…done that. Long ago.

    Remember, to say that Conservatives are the GOP, or even their base, is an unfounded statement. We are just part of a coalition.

    A “public execution” always does the trick: Boehner.

    McNaughton in reply to McNaughton. | November 11, 2012 at 7:44 pm

    My comment was based on something I was told 40-some years ago. People don’t change until it becomes too painful to remain the same. I applied that to the Republican party. I can’t think of anything that would cause the party enough pain and carry enough weight to effect the change needed other than people leaving it en masse.

In honor of this Veterans Day, I’m taking this opportunity to post my favorite Rudyard Kipling poem.

The Grave of the Hundred Head
by Rudyard Kipling – January, 1888

There’s a widow in sleepy Chester
Who weeps for her only son;
There’s a grave on the Pabeng River,
A grave that the Burmans shun;
And there’s Subadar Prag Tewarri
Who tells how the work was done.

A Snider squibbed in the jungle –
Somebody laughed and fled,
And the men of the First Shikaris
Picked up their Subaltern dead,
With a big blue mark in his forehead
And the back blown out of his head.

Subadar Prag Tewarri and
Jemadar Hira Lal,
Took command of the party,
Twenty rifles in all,
Marched them down to the river
As the day was beginning to fall.

They buried the boy by the river,
A blanket over his face-
They wept for their dead Lieutenant,
The men of an alien race – and
They made a samadh in his honour,
A mark for his resting-place.

For they swore by the Holy Water,
They swore by the salt they ate,
That the soul of Lieutenant Eshmitt Sahib
Should go to his God in state,
With fifty file of Burmans
To open him Heaven’s Gate.

The men of the First Shikaris
Marched till the break of day,
Till they came to the rebel village
The village of Pabengmay-
A jingal covered the clearing, and
Caltrops hampered the way.

Subadar Prag Tewarri,
Biddin them load with ball,
Halted a dozen rifles
Under the village wall;
Sent out a flanking-party
With Jemadar Hira Lal.

The men of the First Shikaris
Shouted and smote and slew,
Turning the grinning jingal
On to the howling crew while
The Jemadar’s flanking-party
Butchered the folk who flew.

Long was the morn of slaughter,
Long was the list of slain,
Five score heads were taken,
Five score heads and twain;
And the men of the First Shikaris
Went back to their grave again,

Each man bearing a basket
Red as his palms that day,
Red as the blazing village –
The village of Pabengmay
And the “drip-drip-drip” from the baskets
Reddened the grass by the way

They made a pile of their trophies
High as a tall man’s chin,
Head upon head distorted,
Set in a sightless grin,
Anger and pain and terror
Stamped on the smoke-scorched skin.

Subadar Prag Tewarri
Put the head of the Boh
On the top of the mound of triumph,
The head of his son below-
With the sword and the peacock banner
That the world might behold and know.

Thus the samadh was perfect,
Thus was the lesson plain
Of the wrath of the First Shikaris –
The price of white man slain;
And the men of the First Shikaris
Went back into camp again.

Then a silence came to the river,
A hush fell over the shore,
And Bohs that were brave departed,
And Sniders squibbed no more;
For the Burmans said
That a white man’s head
Must be paid for with heads five-score.

There’s a widow in sleepy Chester
Who weeps for her only son;
There’s a grave on the Pabeng River,
A grave that the Burmans shun;
And there’s Subadar Prag Tewarri
Who tells how the work was done.

We absolutely have to take the Senate and put Harry Reid out to pasture in a pomegranate field. Pelosi has been neutralized and the Naked Emperor is now a naked lame duck. He can still do a great deal of damage but we never have to run against him again. Reid, however, has escaped the attention his Machiavellian machinations deserve.

Harry Reid must go.

Politico lists the three most vulnerable D’s in 2014 as Landrieu, Pryor and Begich. Senator Claire McCaskill is living proof Dems have perfected the art of breathing life in their walking dead. It is no small coincidence the Senate Majority Leader has perfected and franchised the secret sauce to make that happen. This will be our third shot at the Senate, I don’t see how we can tolerate room for error this time around.

Anyone see any great or problematic candidates out there?

Alaska has a front-runner in Mead Treadwell, the Lt. Governor. Dan Miller is also rumored to be considering a run. Which of these two is the better candidate?

    not a candidate but we need to put rove out somewheres to roam away.
    possibly a roving band of gypsies.

    It can be done and WE THE PEOPLE can do it. Stay true to the TEA Party. Do not get sidetracked with abortion. When the candidate is asked about abortion, the answer must be, “I am focused on Jobs, the debt and deficit [maybe add in reforming the tax code]. If that is all that you are interested in, the interview/debate is over or move on to an important question.” The federal government must not be involved with abortion. That is what sunk those jackasses Akin and Mourdock.

      The only problem with your point is that the federal government has inserted itself into the abortion issue and continues to do so with increasing intensity- Sandra Fluke, DHS regulations forcing Catholic hospitals to fund abortions, etc.

      This dovetails with the less spending, smaller government principles of the tea Party, so it really is not a separate issue.

      Surely, it is an emotional issue, and one that is subject to massive distortion, but it is nonetheless important and really can’t be shut off in the national debate. Better to define a coherent position and then effectively counter the opposition’s over the top histrionics. The position must include some acknowledgement of the serious emotional components of the decision to end a baby’s life on everyone concerned — and offer a better alternative.

      Because each situation is unique, it is doubtful that a ‘national policy’ can be constructed to fit every possible personal decision — so we should acknowledge that and stop trying to do so. But we should strongly advocate for the innocent life affected by the decision. To do less would be flatly wrong.

I didn’t start a Romney fan boy, but I confess I hope at this point he will consider a re-run, because he has been battle harden now to what to expect
I fully realize he is a Democrat Lite, as the old John Kennedy
I just do not think with the next presidential election another candidate, even one I would prefer more, has time to learn just how plain nasty it is out there, particularly if Hillary gets her final shot
If it is she, then this last presidential campaign will be a walk in the park for the next Republican, regardless who it is

    Milwaukee in reply to zyzzyva57. | November 11, 2012 at 9:00 pm

    Rather than Romney again, why not have a real small-government principled conservative?

    One of the cracks against Romney is that there isn’t a single issue he where hasn’t had multiple positions.

    At least it might be easier to stop a bad 0bama Supreme Court nomination. A bad choice from Romney would have the support of Democrats and “moderate” Republicans.

How about teaching our conservative candidates what NOT to say to not give fodder to the MSM; a course in how to BE a candidate?

    Ragspierre in reply to MAB. | November 11, 2012 at 7:15 pm

    I would volunteer to teach it nation-wide.

    Also, how to say things POSITIVELY and in a way that disarms your inquisitor.

      Making a laughing stock out of them works well too. You might lose their vote, but all the people watching will go your way.

        How about making public laughingstocks of liberal standard-bearers?

        Of course, conservatives need an approach that would reach the masses, such as conservative versions of colbert/stewart/etc.

        Never underestimate the effectiveness of mockery. Just like liberals made Quayle/Bush/Romney toxic through constant demeaning, conservatives need to implement this tactic on a widespread basis.

        Conservatives need the proper infrastructure first, however.

    How about we don’t hire them?
    WE are the party, not ‘them.’

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to MAB. | November 11, 2012 at 9:42 pm

    I laughed today when one of the must read’s at Powerline was a review of Mamet’s Glengarry Glen Ross, which is all about salesmen. I tend to pull my hair out about how few of our candidates know how to frame an issue or how to cut through the clutter with a TV ad or mailing that uses the proper emotional hook to draw you in. They will produce an ad with a voice over droning that Suzy Q Democrat has a lousy record on school reform. It gets ignored. The same data presented with the lead of a cute kindergarten age girl asking “Mommie, Why do we have to move?” with the answer “We don’t want too, honey. But Suzy Q voted against school reform and we don’t want to risk your future in a subpar school system” is much more likely to get noticed.

    We also need Newt to give seminars to our future candidates on how to properly deal with the press.

      Ah. There’s the rub. Newt is anathema to the Establishment. But since we really don’t want to encourage those candidates, why not?

      Every anti-death candidate needs to be ready with an answer as to why they do or don’t make an exception for rape and incest. That question is coming. Paul Ryan is principled, and is ready. Akin, not ready. Dumb ass.

    It can be done and WE THE PEOPLE can do it. Stay true to the TEA Party. Do not get sidetracked with abortion. When the candidate is asked about abortion, the answer must be, “I am focused on Jobs, the debt and deficit [maybe add in reforming the tax code]. If that is all that you are interested in, the interview/debate is over or move on to an important question.” The federal government must not be involved with abortion. That is what sunk those jackasses Akin and Mourdock.

    SoLongSong in reply to MAB. | November 11, 2012 at 11:58 pm

    The problem is, even if you’re perfect and never misspeak, if you’re a conservative the MSM will make something up. Then when they’re called out for it, they’ll quietly apologize a week later – on page 26.

    The MSM is what the Tea Party should tackle. Were it not for them, obama would never have gotten elected in the first place.

    We also need to take on voter fraud. NOW! And not wait until the next election.

I just want to complain about how bad my Fantasy Football team is. Horrible! How’s everyone else doing?

There is a LOT of noise about how Conservatives need to co-opt amnesty to woo Hispanicos.

I ain’t buying it. In fact, if you look internationally as well as here, I can’t find where amnesty worked as promised.

    That’s the left’s new spin.
    Don’t buy it.

    The GOP bought it hook, line and sinker.

    Ironic how 70% of Hispanics voted for the further establishment of a political-connection-driven, highly-corruptible, coercive society … that will be operating a lot like the ones their brothers and sisters are willing to risk so much to escape from.

      Ironic how 70% of Hispanics voted for the further establishment…

      …and the blacks voted to return to the plantation…and the Jews voted for more fascism. Rudyard Kipling was right:

      As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man —
      There are only four things certain since Social Progress began: —
      That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
      And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

Looking for a place to stand athwart history yelling Stop? Consider that at the end of the Reagan Presidency, Democrats were afraid to use the word ‘liberal’. Consider what conservatives are doing to each other. Consider what the Republican Party is doing to itself. I have a couple of comments to that effect in the previous post.

I’ll yell occasionally, but I’m no longer going to yell myself hoarse. Back when I yelled myself hoarse, I was told that I did not understand how Karl Rove’s Giant Brain had created a strategery leading to The Permanent Republican Majority.

If the stories about the republican pollsters and the GOTV debacle have even an element of truth in them, the GOP needs to radically overhaul it’s complete structure. You cannot outsource the entire campaign to “consultants” who are DC insiders, and basically playing for the other team at least half the time.

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to bawatkins. | November 11, 2012 at 10:11 pm

    The GOP consultants are experts little except how to suppress turnout. They tend to see the voters in fixed terms fixed terms and their job is to mine the votes that are already there. But people aren’t like that. Most are not all that into politics and can be swayed with the right approach. We need people with backgrounds in both sales and entertainment who know how to get people to listen.

Dems have legislative super majorities in CA and IL. I bet austerity is not on the agenda. People in CO who just voted Dems control of their House, look at CA and you see your future.

The next 4-years, I’m horrified to state, will make these last 4 look tame. Obamacare will be fact–A societal shifting/axis moving change for the Vast Worse. 2-SCOTUS choices for The Boy King, almost certain–That’s 4 in 8-years. Gutting, Weakening, Degrading our armed forces in a huge time of DANGER.

And, he’ll throw some’mo gimmes to the kiddies and sleep deeply.

WOW…Makes ya wanta party like its 1968, don’t it?!

I see that there was a story about Elizabeth Warren in the NY TImes today. I try not to read anything in the Times anymore, plus I didn’t want to be even more depressed. Did anyone else read the story and if so, can they give an overview? From the title, I would assume it was very fawning.

As small businesses and corporations further cut back and cut employees in response to more Obamanomics and Obamacare (and the Leftists rail and call them names, for what else does or can the Left ever do, at least when it’s not exulting over its dirty victories?), I began to realize what our new Soviet-Chicago commissars will start doing. Watch for bribes and coercions to companies to escape or defer Obamacare. That’s what protection rackets are all about. That’s what evil is about. Evil is corruptive; it doesn’t simply come head on to destroy things, it finds ways that lead systems and people to corrupt and compromise themselves. I’m thinking that businesses will start making sweetheart deals with the government, and become suitably beholden. They’ll all call it something else, of course; and the media won’t report it, of course. But like a good Third World country, this is how it will work — selective law and the payoffs associated with it. Obama’s goal is not to completely destroy the economy. His goal is control, compromise and enslave it, so that it functions just enough to keep generating revenue to the oligarchs but loses all autonomy and spirit and defiant power. That’s what the 16,000 new IRS agents are all about, after all.

    JimMtnViewCaUSA in reply to raven. | November 11, 2012 at 8:00 pm

    Wow, with an employment crisis like that….we’ll need a big government jobs program!
    Let’s put Sen Lindsay Graham on it right away.

I believe that the only way for conservatives to be politically successful going forward is to create more conservative media to reach out to the masses. Fox news, though it leans right, just isn’t enough. Nor is it a reliable enough messenger for conservative values.

This election was lost because low information voters were bombarded with negative ads, in addition to being subjected to the constant drumbeat of the leftist MSM and liberal pop culture.

Others have said it, but it really needs to be taken to heart. Conservatives must start influencing the culture itself. We can’t wait around for intelligent people to find conservatism. We have to cultivate conservatives, even among those who have no clue what an ‘ideology’ even is.

-cthulblu

    We got to go deeper than the media; EACH OF US going to have to learn how to articulate our values in simple terms the low-info voters around us can understand … in terms of common sense, rather than historical treatise.

    We have to let them know, in simple yet deep terms, WHY what they voted for last week will not EVER work … how they have been sold a bill of goods by our Best and Brightest … and WHAT really works and WHY.

      I don’t disagree that each of us needs to learn how to share with others the benefits of conservatism versus the ills of leftism/collectivism/liberalism/etc.

      However, I don’t believe that ANYTHING goes deeper than the media in these times. It is absolutely pervasive. Like nothing else, it reaches almost everyone in a constant way. It is the ocean we all swim in, the air we breath.

      The conservative message needs to become a part of this environment, both overtly and covertly.

      Liberal pop culture and leftist MSM must be diminished, if conservatism has a chance in the future. I believe that means actively trying to weaken the current corrupt media, as well as fostering new, conservative media.

      Just imagine what could happen if some of the money that was poured into the Super PACS went into creating conservative entertainment – movies, music, books, and news.

      Thank you for your response.

    You are on to something here. Maybe the conservative movement should have a 30 minute show after the “nightly news” and report what is really happening. It will involve buying the time, but if it pays enough money, those whores will grab it up. Call the show “The Real World” or something. Republicans spent 1,000,000,000 on this last election and the super pacs spent 500,000,000, maybe more. That will buy a lot of prime TV time.

      NC Mountain Girl in reply to Towson Lawyer. | November 11, 2012 at 10:30 pm

      The Republican National Committee actually did that for a while. It was a weekly half hour show called GOP-TV. I recall watching it late on Sunday night on one of Chicago local affiliates. I think it was late in Reagan’s term or early in GHW Bush’s term but I could be wrong. It would fit in with the aggressiveness of Lee Atwater. Or maybe it was a couple of years later under Haley Barbour.

Happy BDay to Joy too 🙂
my forum notified me a bit late, gotta run the scheduler on cron I guess and not on system scheduler 🙂

SoCA Conservative Mom | November 11, 2012 at 8:54 pm

My family is currently considering a move out of SoCA to Texas or another red state.

How about an orchestrated Conservative movement of Conservative people from CA, IL, and NY to swing states? When things get really bad in Blue states, maybe enough Conservative people will move to swing a few states to Red. We can only hope.

    How do you think Colorado went from red to blue? All of the jobless Californians moved out here and didn’t realize that their liberal ideologies caused the whole mess in the first place.

    So what do we get now? More liberal democrats all over in government, more failed “green energy” initiatives, and taxes going through the roof.

    Maybe it is time to move back to Nebraska. At least we have the Huskers!

You should get a comission from Amazon – I bought the Lonely Bull because I heard it hear.

Here is my scenario: By the end of Obama’s third year in his second term, he will have substantially increased the number of voters receiving some kind of federal assistance; Obamacare will have succeeded in its goal of destroying private health insurance companies and we will have a single payer (federal) system; taxes on corporations and families earning over $150,000 annually will be increased so that their current contribution of 60% of federal income will approach 90%; job growth will be no higher than population growth with as much as half of that being growth in federal employment; he will have achieved his goal of reducing US energy production (coal,gas,oil), leaving us dependent on Middle East (Islamic) sources; he will have significantly degraded the ability of our military to project strength in any theater; we will be approaching total nuclear disarament; Iran, now a nuclear armed islamic theocracy, will exercise hegonomy in the Middle East; he will have hand-picked his successor, who, like Chavez, will be elected and re-elected.
Given our current political environment, and absent some game changing exogenous event, my scenario is quite likely.

When our party leaders, in and out of office, our commentators, paper, digital, radio and TV, allowed the presidential eligibility question to be defined by the Democrat party as an issue pursued by cranks and lunatics, and went silent, they lost the presidential elections of 2008 and 2012, 2016 and 2020. The Democrat party is well into transforming the nature of American society and its free-enterprise systems. The only way to stop the Obama transformation is for us to go to war over the eligibility issue and Obama’s spurious and felonious documents; a war fought tooth and nail to force our courts and our House of Representatives to act; a war fought until we win or clearly lose. History will not be kind to those of us who, out of fear for their careers and social standing, maintain their resolute silence.

NC Mountain Girl | November 11, 2012 at 10:41 pm

Is Scalia waging a charm offensive against Kagan? I hear he took her hunting for game birds and she liked it well enough they then went on a Wyoming antelope hunt together. My question is was she a shooter already when she joined the Court or did it start with an invitation to join Scalia at the gun range?

Maybe there is a lesson in that for all of us. Those are two activities not associated with Harvard. The Democrats often get away with their caricatures of us because too many of us don’t speak up or reach out.

    They get away with their caricatures because dueling is illegal and we don’t punch them in the mouth. They need a lesson in the bitch known as payback. The more painful the better.

Is it time for a socially conservative, fiscally indifferent third party? Not my choice, but at this point, I might prefer such a party as arbiter of the majority than the current situation, rather like the bedfellows in England today.

    Milwaukee in reply to Jack Burden. | November 11, 2012 at 11:06 pm

    See earlier comment about third parties. The system set up by Republicans and Democrats make third parties extremely difficult. Taking control of an established party would be much easier. For example, a party needs a minimum percentage of the turn out in one election to avoid having to petition onto the ballot in the next.

      Jack Burden in reply to Milwaukee. | November 11, 2012 at 11:13 pm

      Did not catch the earlier comment. Really think the focus from a strategic perspective would be on picking up a number of house seats in very select districts where neither party’s message has much current appeal. Not saying it would not be hard, but desparate times…

We conservatives are good at 1) recognizing the obvious, i.e., we didn’t get enough votes, 2) pulling out our hair at how clueless voters can be who chose the other candidate, and 3) eventually coming to the same conclusion as to how to remedy the problem next time-get better candidates, articulate the issues better and double down on the same themes. The “too moderate” candidate curse seems to always rear its head.

What we never seem to learn is that only some voters are policy wonks who devour position papers or think they are experts because they listen to one commentator or another. Many voters decide on irrational, emotional bases-always have, always will. We either connect with those voters or we lose, like it or not. “Educating” the voters doesn’t work. We are merely projecting onto them how we would respond. We aren’t them. They aren’t us.

Also, politics is a dirty business. Family friendly TEA party rallies and dressing up like Benjamin Franklin may be fun, but politics is about power and NO ONE gives up power-you take it from them as they fight you, biting and scratching and crotch-kicking you. You either approach elections as a bloody brawl or you lose-again and again and again. We either learn to take no prisoners or should leave the field to someone else.

Romney blew it when he did not saturate the swing states with gut-punch ads accusing Obama of abandoning Americans to die, ignoring their pleas for help and turning his back on them to campaign, when he refused to lift a finger to help them in Benghazi.

Romney did not raise it in the last debate and he did not use such an ad over the last few days before election day. Making it an issue of whether Obama used the word “terrorist” or not was simply a weak excuse for a real campaign issue. It smacked of the kind of approach that Bob Dole or John McCain would have taken.

Whether he used the word “terrorist” required an explanation of it as an issue, and emotionally appealing issues don’t need explanations.

I’m thinking of buying a dog.

Looking at all these comments still brings me to the obvious: we have control of the House, and a corrupt idiot is running it.

We have the power to change that. How about it?

Change the mechanism of the Electoral College from state allocated electors to county allocated electors with one elector per county.

That way, we would not have a liberal progressive democrat in the White House for at least a hundred years…

Looks like I was right about Jesse Jackson Jr. Not sick at all. Just trying to duck prosecution. Bastard. Democrats prefer crooks and liars to Republicans.

On the bright side of the election this has gone unnoticed by media. Republicans control the whole deal in 22 states now

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/10/rising-number-of-states-seeing-one-party-rule/#ixzz2BxjZNL5r

    JimMtnViewCaUSA in reply to jimzinsocal. | November 12, 2012 at 11:33 am

    A good-news/bad-news story: big states IL and CA now totally controlled by the Dems. Here in CA, the Repubs are so diminished that they can’t hold back Dems from taxing even though a 2/3 majority is needed.
    Ugh.
    But maybe they will overreach (who am I kidding? OF COURSE they will overreach). The resultant crash should be educational. Possibly the biggest issue coming in these 4 years will be the conflict over whether to bail out blue states whose economy has been devastated by Dem policies.

Why the massive Victory of 2010 and the Defeat of 2012????

AAARRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH…..!!

^^this part folks:

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, which tracks party representation in the country’s 50 state governments, Democrats now control all three bases of power — the governorship and both houses of the state legislature — in 14 states and Republicans in 23, with only 12 states sharing power. Nebraska’s unicameral legislature is considered nonpartisan.

Regional power bases also are emerging, with Democrats increasingly dominating state governments in New England.

Conversely, the GOP for the first time since 1872 now will control the Arkansas House and Senate. Just 20 years ago, Republicans didn’t have a majority in a single legislative house in the states of the old Confederacy; now they will control all 11.

How interesting is this? Show me a Green or Blue State where Obama won

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Voter_ID_Laws.svg

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend