Tag Archives: Democratic

Tea Party Tyrants

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) called the tea party “tyrants” in a tweet on August 7 because its members supposedly blocked a bigger and better deal from being approved.

Disregarding what effect the tea party had on the debt ceiling negotiations, there is absolutely no comparison between the tea party and tyrants. Aristotle writes:

A tyrant, as has often been repeated, has no regard to any public interest, except as conducive to his private ends; his aim is pleasure.

The tea party has not promoted a single idea to promote its “private ends.” Instead, it has promoted ideas that it believes would benefit the entire nation. Democrats may disagree with the tea party’s agenda, but it is ridiculous to assert that the tea party’s “aim is pleasure.”

I can hear the liberals complaining that Aristotle’s definition of tyrant is old and out-dated. Let’s turn to a more modern and American definition. A definition that was essential in the creation of the Constitution and our republican. James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 47:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

Let’s see here. The tea party controls none of the branches of government. In fact, the Republicans do not even fully control a branch of government. (They control half of the legislative branch and 5 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices could be considered Republican, but the Senate is Democrat as is the President.)

But James Madison wrote that more than two hundred years ago. Many liberals don’t think the Constitution and our Founding Fathers are relevant any more. So let’s check an even more recent definition, Merriam-Webster:

1
a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution
b : a usurper of sovereignty
2
a : a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally
b : one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power

Hmm, the tea party fits none of those definitions either. The tea party is not an absolute ruler, has not usurped the nation’s sovereignty, is not a ruler with absolute power acting oppressively or brutally, and is not an oppressive ruler acting harshly.

I’d be very interested to hear by what definition the tea party are tyrants.

– Michael E. Newton is the author of the highly acclaimed The Path to Tyranny: A History of Free Society’s Descent into Tyranny. His newest book, Angry Mobs and Founding Fathers: The Fight for Control of the American Revolution, was released by Eleftheria Publishing in July.

Democrats adopt the Monty Python strategy: Running Away

The Washington Post reports:

Democratic legislators embracing tactic to gain leverage: Fleeing

Yes, that’s the actual headline. So what does this remind me of?

Brave Sir Robin [Fleeing begins at 2:30] (HT Instapundit):

Attacking a French Castle [Fleeing begins at 3:07]:

Killer bunny [Fleeing begins at 1:55]:

The end of that clip omits the most important part. It’s leaves off the Democrats’ strategy:

ROBIN: Would it help to confuse it if we run away more?

ARTHUR: Oh, shut up and go and change your armor.

GALAHAD: Let us taunt it! It may become so cross that it will make a mistake.

And there is the strategy of the Democrats. Run away to confuse people and taunt their enemies hoping they’ll make a mistake. Hey, it’s easier than learning how to govern.

Again, Hat Tip to Instapundit.

A good sign. Republicans get religion on earmarks.

Byron York reports:

In the 2011 House budget, the groups found that House Democrats requested 18,189 earmarks, which would cost the taxpayers a total of $51.7 billion, while House Republicans requested just 241 earmarks, for a total of $1 billion.

The Senate is a different story. But even though some Republicans are still seeking earmarks, Democrats are by far the bigger spenders. The watchdog groups found that Democrats requested 15,133 earmarks for 2011, for a total of $54.9 billion, while Republicans requested 5,352 earmarks, for a total of $22 billion.

In the House, Democrats out-earmarked Republicans by a 50-to-1 margin. Democrats out-earmarked Republicans by a 5-to-2 margin in Senate.

With Republicans taking over the House in January, we could see earmarks disappear. At least that is my hope.

Yes, I know that earmarks are just a small portion of the wasteful government spending. I even heard one Democratic analyst say “Earmarks are a rounding error.” Only in Washington is $8,300,000,000 considered a rounding error.

More important is that earmarks are, in effect, a bribe to get Representatives and Senators to vote for a bill they otherwise would not have voted for. If a Congressperson likes a bill, he or she should vote for it on the merits and not for the earmarks. And if he or she dislikes the bill, vote against. Thus, earmarks are either a complete waste of money if they don’t affect how our Congressperson votes or is a form of bribery if it does effect them. Earmarks are wasteful or evil. Either way, we should get rid of them forever.

Has the Tea Party accomplished anything yet?

Many people talk about the success of the tea party movement. While we did something remarkable in the 2010 election, we have not really accomplished anything yet.

I recall this chart of total government spending excluding defense over the last 100 years.

Click on image to zoom in:

In 1910, government at all levels spent about 7% of GDP. Today it is about 37%. Do you see what the tea party has accomplished so far? NOTHING!!!

At best we slowed down the rate of growth or maybe even stopped it. But we have yet to reduce it by a single percentage point after it rose seven percentage points in just two years.

Many in the tea party movement claim that Obama is the worst President ever. Yet, the GOP won just 54.2% of the two-party vote, maybe slightly higher if you add in Murkowski’s votes. The Republicans won 240+ seats, but that’s less than the 257 seats the Democrats won in 2008. Against the supposed worst President in history, that’s all the tea party could accomplish?

I don’t mean to minimize the biggest electoral shift since 1948… OK, yes I do. These accomplishments are meaningless unless they are used for something bigger. I will not be satisfied until I see the vast majority of Americans voting for republican government (small ‘r’ intentional) and that trend line of government moving down instead of up. When that happens, I’ll talk about our accomplishments. Until then, I’m too busy working for the cause of liberty to brag about winning a few seats in Congress.

Congrats GOP. Now what do we do?

Congratulations to the GOP. They accomplished a historic election victory. The largest change in government since 1948.

However, I continue to fear for this country. Not because of the politicians, but because of the people. Of the 40-50% of those eligible to vote who actually voted, how many voted for liberty and limited government? The GOP won about 54% of the total vote, so maybe 54%. Maybe more, maybe less. But considering the majority of people didn’t even bother to vote, you are looking at a very small portion of the population who understands and cares enough to vote in favor of liberty and limited government. The number is 30% of the population, at best. Probably closer to 25% or even lower.

That is a very disappointing figure. While we must be involved in the political system, that will only help us on the margin. If 25% of the population supports limited government, nominating attractive candidates may boost that to 26% or 27%. Enough to temporarily defeat the political opponent, but not enough to fundamentally change our country.

The only long-term solution is education. We need to further the ideas of liberty, limited government, and checks and balances.We need to read, we need to write, and we need to share. With Amazon.com and social media, we have the tools to spread the knowledge. All it takes it effort.

So, now that the election is over, we have three main jobs:

  1. Make sure that government officials from both parties work toward smaller government.
  2. Begin recruiting for the next election.
  3. Educate ourselves and the public as to the benefits of limited government and checks and balances as described by our Constitution and elaborated upon in the Federalist Papers.

As you know, I’ll be focusing on the third item. I’ve already written one book warning the people of the evils of big government and the democratic demand for free gifts from the government. Many of you already know that I am working on a second book, the topic of which has not yet been announced. I have many more books planned, each of which advances the cause of liberty.

But while I will concentrate on the education portion, I will not be ignoring the first two parts. I will remain active in the political arena to ensure our governments (federal, state, and local) limit their size and scope and to help choose future candidates for political office.

We have a lot of work ahead of us. It has taken 100 years for our government to go from a very minor portion of our society to the huge behemoth it is today. It may take 100 years to reverse what has been done and we may not be alive to see our success. But succeed we must for the fate of our country and the world depend on us.

Eleftheria i thanatos!

NOV 2 Prediction. A Republican tsunami! My official election prediction for the House of Representatives.

It’s election day and I am assuming there won’t be any more polls coming out. So now it is time to make my final election prediction for the House of Representatives. For those who have not been watching, this is not my first prediction.

Here is my prediction from October 22. GOP gain of 61 seats.

Here is my prediction from October 24. GOP gains 78 seats.

Here is my October 29 prediction. GOP gains 72 seats.

First a review of how I make my prediction.

I simply take the RCP average of Generic Congressional Vote as my baseline. I adjust their vote totals to assume the GOP and Dems receive 100% of the vote (ie. no third parties win any seats). Then, I have three models to convert vote totals to House seats.

40-year model: Regression of House seats vs. vote total for every election since 1968.

8-year model: Regression of House seats vs. vote total for every election since 2002. Because of the increase in partisanship and computerized gerrymandering, there are now many more safe seats.

1994 & 2006 model: In these two mid-term elections, control of the House switched sides against an unpopular President. The same will likely occur this year.

The models produce the following results:

40-year model: Republicans win 268 House seats, gain of 90 seats.

8-year model: Republicans win 247 House seats, gain of 69 seats.

1994 & 2006 model: Republicans win 253 House seats, gain of 75 seats.

Taking a simple average of the three, I now predict the Republicans will win 256 House seats, a gain of 78 seats.

OCT 29 UPDATE! A Republican tsunami! My official election prediction for the House of Representatives.

This prediction has been replaced/updated with this one.

In my first analysis of the election, I forecast a Republican gain of 61 seats in the House.

In my second, I created three more sophisticated models and forecasted a GOP gain of 78 House seats. Each time a new Generic Congressional Poll was released, I updated my forecast in the comment section. I will do so again here.

The following is mostly the same text from Sunday’s post with updated polling data.

First, one must predict the vote totals for each party. Currently, RCP’s average of the “Generic Congressional Vote” shows Republicans winning 48.7% to 42.4%, a decline from Sunday’s 49.3%-41.6% margin. I then remove the polls with highest and lowest spread to eliminate outliers (in this case, I am removing one poll showing Republicans up by 14 and one that shows Democrats up by 3). Excluding those two gives us a much smaller range of +3 to +13, though this is much wider than Sunday’s range of +7 to +11, a small ver 4 point range. Removing the highest and lower outlier, Republicans lead Democrats 49.0% to 41.7%, a narrower spread than last week’s 49.8% to 40.6%. Eliminating the undecideds (if they have not decided by now, they are unlikely to vote) gives a two-party vote total of 54.0% for the Republicans (down from 55.1%) and 46.0% for the Democrats (up from 44.9%).

I now have three models to convert vote totals to House seats.

40-year model: Regression of House seats vs. vote total for every election since 1968.

8-year model: Regression of House seats vs. vote total for every election since 2002. Because of the increase in partisanship and computerized gerrymandering, there are now many more safe seats.

1994 & 2006 model: In these two mid-term elections, control of the House switched sides against an unpopular President. The same will likely occur this year.

The models produce the following results:

40-year model: Republicans win 257 House seats, gain of 79 seats.

8-year model: Republicans win 241 House seats, gain of 63 seats.

1994 & 2006 model: Republicans win 246 House seats, gain of 68 seats.

Taking a simple average of the three, I now predict the Republicans will win 248 House seats, a gain of 70 seats. On Sunday, I had predicted a gain of 78 seats. So the Generic Congressional Polls moved against the Republicans this week, but only barely.

However, the last poll of the week moved significantly in the GOP’s favor. Individual races, which had been moving against Republicans last week and earlier in this week, have also moved in the GOP’s favor toward the end of the week. I suspect that most of the movement we are seeing is statistical noise and not a change in voters’ opinions. So let’s take an average of my averages over the past week. Doing so, I now predict the GOP will gain 72 seats in the US House of Representatives.

UPDATED! A Republican tsunami? My official election prediction for the House of Representatives.

This prediction has been replaced/updated with this one.

I have added new models to my previous prediction of a Republican gain of 61 seats in the House.

First, one must predict the vote totals for each party. Currently, RCP’s average of the “Generic Congressional Vote” shows Republicans winning 49.3% to 41.6%. However, you clearly see two outliers, one to the upside (Gallup LV Lower Turnout) and one to the downside (Newsweek). Excluding those two gives you a pretty tight pack varying from +7 to +11, a small 4 point range versus the huge 20 point range if you include the two extreme polls. Based on these five closely-packed polls, Republicans lead Democrats 49.8% to 40.6%. Eliminating the undecideds (if they have not decided by now, they are unlikely to vote) gives a two-party vote total of 55.1% for the Republicans and 44.9% for the Democrats.

I now have three models to convert vote totals to House seats.

40-year model: Regression of House seats vs. vote total for every election since 1968.

8-year model: Regression of House seats vs. vote total for every election since 2002. Because of the increase in partisanship and computerized gerrymandering, there are now many more safe seats.

1994 & 2006 model: In these two mid-term elections, control of the House switched sides against an unpopular President. The same will likely occur this year.

The models produce the following results:

40-year model: Republicans win 268 House seats, gain of 90 seats.

8-year model: Republicans win 247 House seats, gain of 69 seats.

1994 & 2006 model: Republicans win 253 House seats, gain of 75 seats.

Taking a simple average of the three, I now predict the Republicans will win 256 House seats, a gain of 78 seats.

* Again, I will update these numbers as new polls come in. But if you look at the polls on RCP over the last month, Republicans have been consistently in the lead by 8 or 9 points. Barring some late breaking change in this election, I don’t expect these number to change much. But who know how accurate the polling is this year? We won’t know for certain until November 2.

A Republican tsunami? My official election prediction for the House of Representatives.

This prediction has been replaced/updated with this one.

Many, if not most, political analysts are talking about the Republican tsunami due on November 2. According to current projections at FiveThirtyEight, Republicans are expected to capture 7 Senate seats, 50 House seats, 6 Governorships. Analysts are calling this the biggest year since 1994. Michael Barone says it may be even bigger than that:

For months, people have been asking me if this year looks like ’94. My response is that the poll numbers suggest it looks like 1994, when Republicans gained 52 seats in a House of 435 seats. Or perhaps somewhat better for Republicans and worse for Democrats. The Gallup high turnout and low turnout numbers suggest it looks like 1894, when Republicans gained more than 100 seats in a House of approximately 350 seats.

Maybe the results will be closer to Michael Barone’s high-end prediction than RCP and FiveThirtyEight. To betray my political affiliation, as if you didn’t already know, I hope it is. But currently, the polling suggests it won’t be. FiveThirtyEight’s statistical analysis has the Republicans winning 228.4 House seats. RCP hs the Republicans at 235.5 if we give half the Toss Ups to the Republicans. So based on current projections, the Republicans will win 52.5% or 54.1% of all House seats. Currently, the Democrats have 255 House seats or 58.6% of them. For Republicans to match the Democrats’ current position, Republicans would have to win 77 House seat. (Remember, all House seats are up for grabs each two-year election.)

This certainly puts the “tsunami” into perspective. While this election may be called a tsunami based on the number of seats changing hands, I would not call it an outright tsunami when Republicans are not likely to win as many seats in 2010 as Democrats did in 2008.

This tsunami vs. non-tsunami picture can be seen as either good news or bad news for Republicans (and inversely for Democrats).

From the one perspective, it would be very disappointing that the Republicans can only manage 52.5% (FiveThirtyEight) or 54.1% (RCP) of the House seats in a tsunami year. How can the Republicans “fix” Washington and the country when they cannot win the large majorities that the Democrats have been able to?

From another perspective, this may mean that the polls, RCP, and FiveThirtyEight are way off and that some predictions of even larger Republican gains will come true. The generic Congressional polls currently gives the Republicans a 7.2% advantage. However, if you eliminate the three oldest polls in the average, Republicans have a 9.8% advantage. That would imply a Republican vote total of 54.9%. In 2006, the Democrats won 53.6% of the total vote and captured 53.6% of the House seats in an election that switched party control. So, even with the benefits of incumbency, each party should receive the number of House seats equal to its vote total. Therefore, based on the generic Congressional polls, Republicans should win 54.9% of the House seats, giving them 239 seats, a 61 seat gain.

Let’s look at an alternative scenario. What is Gallup’s most Republican-favorable margin of victory plays out? If Republicans do indeed win by seventeen point, they would win 58.5% of the total vote and about the same number of House seat. That would results in 254 Republican seats, a gain of 76 seats. That would be huge, a tsunami as they are saying, but nowhere near the 100 seats Michael Barone said is possible.

Now what if the low end model plays out; the one where Republicans only win by five points? The Republicans would then capture about 228 seat, a gain of 50 seats.

So here is my official prediction for the House of Representatives:

Republicans gain 61 seats and finish with 239 seat, about 55% of the total. This is more than the 50-seat gain predicted at FiveThirtyEight and the 58-seat gain predicted by RCP, but less than some others are talking about. On the low end, I would expect Republicans to win 50 seats. So my low end projection is equal to FiveThirtyEight’s middle-of-the-road projection. On the high end, I think it unlikely that Republicans win more than 76 seats*, much less than some are saying is possible. (I will update this prediction in the comments section as new polls come in.)

* All that said, this election is probably the most difficult to model in years, possibly ever, and the polls and models they are based on are less accurate than most years. The gap between Gallup’s registered voter and likely voter (lower turnout) models is a huge 12 points. Nobody know which model, if any, is the best and therefore the range of possible results this election is huge. But lacking anything better than the current polls and models, I used those.

Time to support the independents. Time to support the Constitution!

For years we’ve heard anger directed at the two-party system. “The parties don’t represent us.” “They are all just a bunch of crooks.” Even I have said on many occasions, “There is only one thing I hate more than a Republican; and that’s a Democrat!”

Now American’s will have to put up or shut up. After the remarkable success of tea party candidates in the primaries, let’s see how these naysayers vote. We now have candidates who are well-educated in American values, whose stated goal is to uphold the Constitution, and are not beholden to either party. Yes, these candidates are all nominally Republicans, but so many of them were opposed by the party and, therefore, they have no allegiance to the party leadership.

The main argument against these candidates is that they are “too far to the right.” Right and left is not the issue here. The issue today is constitutional republicanism or collectivist tyranny. I know how the tea party candidates and supporters stand on these issues. And I know what those on the extreme left believe.

How about you Mr. Moderate and Mrs. Independent? Do you stand for law, order, justice, and liberty? Or do you stand for rule by men, corruption, party loyalty, and government handouts?

For the first time in many years, you will show us in November what you really believe. I urge you to vote for the tea party candidates whose loyalties belong to the Constitution and not to the Republican or Democratic Party.