The pundits aren't the only source of hot air about the election results. There are, of course, the politicians themselves, for whom hot air is, as slavery was to the landholders of the Old South, a peculiar institution and a cherished way of life (which apologies to Peter Stone and Sherman Edwards, the authors of "1776").
The soon-to-be Republican leaders in the next House of Representatives have taken to the airwaves (and cable lines, and Net servers) to inform the world that the 2010 election is nothing less than an anti-liberal referendum, and a demand by the American people that all conservative wishes be enshrined into law. Anyone who dares to say otherwise is guilty of the capital crime of national approval--not "getting it."
Never mind the fact that their own approval ratings are not much better than the President's--or the fact that the Democrats still control the Senate as well as the White House. Being elected is always the by-product of many factors beyond the control of any candidate--the economy, in the case of this election, for example. It is never a ringing endorsement of all of the winning candidates' "ideas." (See my previous post regarding the question of whether many of them have any real "ideas" in the first place.)
When it comes to a number of key issues, such as health care, and airport scanners, the public isn't on their side. When it comes to the overall tax-and-spend question, the best they can get are mixed results. Even on the question of whether their majority even exists, they strike out.
Perhaps this is why the putative Speaker of the House is so willing to let President Obama set the agenda. It gives him and his party the freedom to go on doing the only thing they really do well--say "no."
No comments:
Post a Comment