Archive for December, 2010

“There’s nothing in this world so sweet as love. And next to love the sweetest thing is hate,” said American poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. He’s right. In that spirit, we’ve compiled a list of the top “10 Liberals We Loved to Hate in 2010.” These are people who do the most ridiculous things, say the most absurd stuff, and generally just get under our skin. But at the end of the day we still find ourselves hopelessly churning through the news to see what bizarre things these people would say or do next. And God bless them, they rarely let us down.

So here it is, the 10 Democrats We Loved to Hate in 2010:

10. Ben Nelson: For a few moments in 2010, we actually did love this guy. He, and his merry-band of Democratic misfits, seemed prepared to vote with Republicans and put an end to Obamacare in the Senate. The longtime abortion opponent argued that the bill’s language “to ban public funding of abortion is not sufficient.” And then he sold out. In exchange for a “yes” vote, Reid gave Nelson permanent and full federal aid for his state’s expanded Medicaid population. For proving that your morality has a price, we love to hate you Senator Nelson.

9. Paul Krugman: There is no doubt that he’s smart. Just read one of his columns and he’s sure to tell you that. But any iota of intelligence is covered up by his thick doses of smarm. Well, smarm, and a limited range of ideas. Pick up his column and I can almost guarantee you it covers one of the following topics: the stimulus was too small, debt is good, austerity is bad, don’t worry about inflation, Republicans don’t care about the deficit, or, my personal favorite – the stimulus was too small. Regardless, I still find myself drawn to his column just to hear him call Paul Ryan, one of the few politicians with ideas on the deficit, a “flimflam man” with ideas “drenched in flimflam sauce.” Where does he come up with this stuff! So, for going from Nobel to noxious in no time flat, we love to hate you Mr. Krugman.

8. Barbara Boxer: Barbara Boxer is an angry woman. I’m sorry, I should have said Senator Boxer.  Wouldn’t want to face the same fate as Brigadier General Michael Walsh whom she chided for not calling her by her title. Interrupting the General during his testimony Boxer said, “Could you say ‘senator’ instead of ‘ma’am? It’s just a thing. I worked so hard to get that title. I’d appreciate it.” Well she sure isn’t working hard to earn our respect. Beyond her climate change crusade, her main accomplishment in the Senate has been perfecting her condescending, haughty, patronizing, and paternalistic style. And for that, we love to hate you madam Boxer.

7. Rachel Maddow: The queen of conspiracy theories. Once you sort through the inanity of her show, it really consists of three fundamental parts: (1) the part where she taps her pen on her desk to authoritatively prove her point, (2) the part where she conflates the opinion of one Republican onto the entire party to show just how kooky we really are, and (3) the part where she shows a clip of a Republican in office followed by her weird and repeated intonation of the phrase “you’re lying.” For having a schtick as predictable and boorish as Digger Phelps “tie-lighter”, we love to hate you Ms. Maddow.

6. Keith Olbermann: Another one we used to love! Granted it was back when he was a Sportcenter anchor rather than an MSNBC partisan hack. Now he just comes off as a more caustic, less entertaining version of John Stewart. In fact, Olbermann’s show has become such a parody of liberal hatred, that fellow left-winger Stewart skewered Olbermann at his Rally to Restore Sanity. To appear less divisive, Olbermann immediately suspended his “Worst Person in the World” gimmick because “its satire and whimsy have gradually gotten lost in some anger.” Don’t worry, we’re here to pick up where Keith left off. So for being the “Worst Person in the World,” you Mr. Olbermann are someone we love to hate.

5. Helen Thomas: She has covered the administrations of 10 presidents in a career spanning 60 years. She was the first female office of the National Press Club and the first female member and president of the White House Correspondent’s Association. But she promptly through that all away in the past year by making a variety of anti-Semitic comments. Saying that the Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine” and go back home to “Poland, Germany, and America and everywhere else” with a camera stuck in your face is a quick way to end a career. She then retired and apologized. But we hadn’t heard the last of Ms. Thomas. In December she apparently went back on her apology saying that “I paid a price, but it’s worth it to speak the truth.” And because we too must speak the truth, we proudly proclaim Helen Thomas someone we love to hate.

4. Joe Biden: He may only be Vice President of the United States, but he is without a doubt the President and Supreme Ruler of gaffes. This year was filled with them. From wrongly saying that the Irish Prime Minister’s mother had died (she alive and well) to whispering audibly to the President that signing the healthcare bill “was a big f**king deal,” Biden was always fun to be around. But our personal favorite gaffe-of-the-year was when Biden visited a frozen custard store in Wisconsin. When Biden asked what he owed the manager said, “Don’t worry, it’s on the house…Lower our taxes and we’ll call it even.” Never one to stay quiet for long Biden asked the manager, “Why don’t you say something nice instead of being a smartass all the time?” For making buying frozen custard a national incident, and keeping conservatives wildly entertained in the process, Joe Biden is a man we love to hate.

3. Harry Reid: Another gaffe-prone politician. This year’s biggie was the revelation that the Senate Majority Leader described Barack Obama as a “light skinned” African-American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one. “ But what really made us love to hate him was his wonderful mismanagement of his enormous Senate majority. His failure to keep the Democratic coalition together in the healthcare debate, partly because of the special deal he gave his home state of Nevada, led many Democrats to decry his lack of leadership. Somehow he squeaked by this election cycle, meaning we get at least six more years of this Senator that we love to hate.

2. Alan Grayson: This loudmouthed liberal made headlines for all the wrong reasons in 2010. From saying the Republican healthcare plan was for patients to “die quickly,” to calling a female Federal Reserve adviser a “K-Street whore,” to nicknaming his Republican opponent “Taliban Dan” after taking his words out of context, Grayson wasn’t known for holding back. I mean, you know you’re a crazy liberal when the best the left-leaning New York Times can say about you is: “Grayson has catapulted himself to national renown for outlandish rhetoric and a pugilistic political style that makes him seem less staid lawmaker than a character on the lam from one of his Orlando district’s theme parks.” The voter’s didn’t appreciate his crazy antics, voting him out of office after one term. I’d like to say that we’ll miss you Alan Grayson, but the truth is won’t, though we do still love to hate you.

1. Nancy Pelosi: Could it have been anyone else!?! Pelosi, even more than President Obama, became the face for everything that was wrong with the Democratic Party. She was out of touch, imperialistic, and what’s more, didn’t care one bit. It’s all perfectly summed up in her now famous line, “We have to pass the (health care) bill so you can find out what is in it.” But despite her party’s enormous losses the former Speaker of the House refused to go away quietly. Instead she announced that she would be returning as the House Minority Leader. More time in the spotlight for Nancy P-“ego”-si, the number one liberal we absolutely love to hate.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director

The 2010 elections have been called nearly every natural disaster imaginable. From a Republican Tsunami, to a Political Hurricane, to the Earthquake Elections, its safe to say the midterms were a big deal. While Republicans made huge gains, Democrats suffered some terrible losses. So who were the top Democrats to bite the dust in 2010? Here’s our Top 10

10. Rep. Tom Perriello (VA-5) Perriello was only a freshman, but was nevertheless one of the more closely watched races in the nation. The reason is his close relationship with President Obama who singled him out for being courageous in voting for healthcare reform. That relationship manifested itself on the campaign trail where President Obama made several trips to campaign on Perriello’s behalf. His loss signaled the ever-shortening coattails of the President and his policies.

9. Rep. Rick Boucher (VA-9) Having spent nearly three decades in office and as chairman of the House Communications, Technology and Internet Subcommittee, Boucher was an important voice in a policy area of growing importance. His loss will likely serve as a death blow to the controversial “net neutrality” bill that could have opened the door to greater regulation of internet lines. His loss also means that Democrats lose a powerful voice in support of the cap-and-trade bill.

8. Rep. Jim Oberstar (MN-8) Oberstar, chairman of the powerful Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, was first elected in 1974, having served 18 straight terms in one of the safest Democratic seats in the nation. In fact, he’s never won by less than double digits and captured 70 percent of the vote in his last election. As one local newspaper wrote of his shocking loss, “Oberstar has been around Washington politics so long that when he started as a congressional aide in the early 1960s, the House still had spittoons and women couldn’t wear pants.” But with a less than flattering record on spending and earmarks, it was time for Oberstar to go.

7. Rep. Alan Grayson (FL-8) More loud than important, Grayson makes the list because of his combative and visible style. Grayson ran one of the more despicable campaigns in recent memory, calling his opponent “Taliban Dan” while taking Dan Webster’s words out of context. In one of his more infamous lines, Grayson said that Republicans healthcare plan was for patients to “die quickly.” As it turns out, his words better describe his political career.

6. Rep. Ike Skelton (MO-4) Another of the Democratic old guard in Congress, Skelton had survived 17 election cycles spanning 33 years of service. Because of his loss Democrats lose a powerful player on a powerful committee with Skelton having served as chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. He was a strong supporter of the military, a social conservative, and he voted against Obamacare; nevertheless, his ouster shows the enormity of the Republican wave that defined the 2010 elections.

5. Rep. Chet Edwards (TX-17) From Vice Presidential candidate in 2008 to out of office entirely in 2011, it has been a steep political fall for one-time rising star Chet Edwards. Edwards had been one of the more resilient members of the Democratic party. He was the only targeted Democrat to survive redistricting in 2003, and has won consistently despite a heavily Republican district. After all, his district encompasses George W. Bush’s ranch! Edwards loss symbolizes that Republicans are finally ready to win where they should.

4. Rep. John Spratt (SC-5): As the Budget Committee Chairman, Spratt was one of the more powerful leaders of Congress. “Leader” may not be the right word considering his committee failed to pass a budget for the first time in the history of the modern budget process. His loss is also historic, Spratt’s seat had not been held by a Republicans since Reconstruction!

3. Rep. Paul Kanjorski (PA-11) The 13 term Democrat was the second-ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee where he chairs the Capital Markets Subcommittee. That’s a long way of saying he’s important. His subcommittee is responsible for overseeing mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which have cost taxpayers billions of dollars and are in dire need of reform. He was also a major player in crafting the financial overhaul, adding a provision that allows regulators to force businesses’ hand if they felt their actions were risky. His loss means Democrats lose a key expert in an area that is sure to be at the top of both party’s agenda.

2. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) The news headlines read “The End of a Progressive Champion” following Feingold’s defeat to Ron Johnson. He was widely known for being the only Senator to vote against the PATRIOT Act following the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center. He’s also voted to the left of his own party by voting against the bailout of financial institutions and the regulations of Wall Street because they didn’t go far enough. He liked to call himself a maverick, but to voters he was just another liberal Democrat.

1. Gov. Ted Strickland (OH) The race symbolized the enormous Republican gains made in nationwide governors races in a crucial redistricting year. It also sets the table for the 2010 presidential race. As one Democratic strategist explained, “If we can hold on to Ohio, we can create a firewall for President Obama. He can lose all other eight states he flipped [from the Republican column,] but if he holds Ohio, he can win with exactly 270 [electoral] votes.” Ted Strickland losing makes the math that much more difficult for Democrats in 2012.

Agree? Disagree? Let us know what we missed by commenting below.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director

Like 2010, Operation Red November in 2011 will be a grassroots movement by College Republicans nationwide to recruit and mobilize college students to vote and volunteer for Republican candidates in local and state elections. Currently, plans are being written to hire, train and deploy highly trained College Republican field Operatives to work alongside our 200,000 members on 1,500 campuses across country to make November 2011 as red as November 2010!

Read the rest of this entry »

What do you think President Obama’s top priority should be? If you’re like most people you probably said job creation or fixing the economy. Either would be a logical choice considering the rampant joblessness and overall dire state of our economy. Now normally when you think of top priority, you think of one thing. Namely, the issue that requires your attention first. So what is President Obama’s top priority? As CBS discovered earlier this year, Obama has quite a few “top priority” issues. But not one to rest on his laurels, President Obama has come up with a range of new top priorities.

So here it is. President Obama’s Top 10 Top Priorities of 2010.

Honorable Mentions:

• Building Relationships with Spiritual Leaders: “That’s why engaging priests, pastors, rabbis and other religious and community leaders across the country on issues that impact our families is one of President Obama’s top priorities” – Special Assistant to the President Joshua DuBois
• Securing our Southwest Border: “I have made securing our Southwest Border a top priority since I came to office. That is why my administration has dedicated unprecedented resources and personnel to combating the transnational criminal organizations…across the border with Mexico”

10. Student Loan Reform: “If we can cut those middlemen out [of the government loan programs], then you’ve got several billion dollars that you can invest in the programs that I just described.This is something that I’ve made a top priority.” – President Obama

9. Stem Cell Research: “President Obama made expansion of stem cell research and the pursuit of groundbreaking treatments and cures a top priority when he took office.” – Press Secretary Robert Gibbs

8. Energy Security: “We talked about issues of how the climate is changing. We talked about how it threatened our national security because we’re dependent on other countries for what makes our country run . . . I don’t accept second place for the United States of America.  And that’s why our energy security has been a top priority for my administration” – President Obama

7. START Treaty: During a trip to Asia in November President Obama told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that getting the Senate to ratify the nuclear weapons treaty was a “top priority” – President Obama

6. Free Trade Agreements: “I don’t want to close off trade with other countries — I want to open those countries because that’s a lot of where the growth is and that’s where we can sell our products and we’ve got a competitive advantage. But we’ve got to keep on pushing and be tough in our negotiations, and that’s something that’s going to be a top priority. So that’s on the trade side.” – President Obama

5. Education: “And that’s why — that is why, from day one of this administration, we’ve made excellence in American education — excellence for all our students — a top priority” – President Obama

4. Middle Class Tax Cuts: “My number-one priority is making sure that we make the middle-class tax cuts permanent, that we give certainty to the 98 percent of Americans who are affected by those tax breaks.” – President Obama

3. Gulf Oil Spill: “There has never been a point during this crisis in which this administration, up and down up the line, in all these agencies, hasn’t, number one, understood this was my top priority — getting this stopped and then mitigating the damage” – President Obama

2. Helping Small Businesses and Banks: “If we can start loosening up credit for small businesses, and helping smaller and community banks with their lending portfolios, that will make a huge difference in terms of the pace of our economic growth.  So this is really a top priority for our administration.”

1. Job Creation: “We agreed to continue working aggressively on our highest economic priority, which is creating jobs for our people.” – President Obama

Rather than paying lip service to the constituencies behind these “top priorities,” here’s to hoping Obama gets down to business and actually focuses on getting our economy back on the right track.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director

Millennials are running out of hope. The economic crash and the government spending binge which followed it has left us with diminished income opportunities and a sizeable debt to payoff. All-in-all the federal government under the Democrats seemed to forget about us young adults.

So argues a new article by Joseph Lawler in the American Spectator entitled “Millennials and Hope.” Lawler argues that,

“TRAGICALLY, the laws that Obama and the Democrats have passed to counteract the supposed decline of the middle class, such as the health care bill and parts of the stimulus, are at odds with what future generations need to continue moving up the income ladder as Americans have been doing. In other words, to appeal to the middle class, which is not in trouble, the Democrats in power are waging a war on the young workers of tomorrow, who are.

Specifically, the Democrats are committed to serving the interests of public sector workers, and especially teachers’ unions. And this affiliation is just one of many ways in which Democrats support enormous present and structural federal budget deficits.

The Democrats’ neglect of youth-friendly reforms together with their commitment to deficits amounts to what liberal budget expert Isabel Sawhill called a “double whammy” for the younger generations. “On the one hand, the programs they need are not going to be there, and on the other hand they’re going to be stuck paying the bills for the elderly population and for the deficits that we’re creating.”

Rather than a focus on teachers unions, what we need is drastic changes in our education system. Rather than adding a healthcare plan, what we need is entitlement reform. Rather than piling up deficits in the false hope that it will help the economy today, what we need is a dose of concern over future generations.

In short, what we need is a Washington who truly cares about future generations. What we need, is something to be hopeful about. Sadly, Democrats haven’t provided us with much of that.

Find Lawler’s argument intriguing? I encourage you to read the entirety of his argument: http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/27/millennials-and-hope/

Investing in math and science is the way to solve the economy. A great idea. And somehow liberals have co-opted it to make it sound like their own.

Today’s Los Angeles Times for instance contains an article entitled, “Fixing the Economy the Scientific Way,” arguing that the federal government must spend more money on math and science education. They point to the fact that over the last 40 years the government’s support of science has declined 60% as a portion of GDP. They then argue that Republicans will only make the problem worse, pointing to their pledge to reduce federal spending on nondefense-related science research to pre-stimulus levels.

There is a lot wrong with this argument. For instance, given that the stimulus was a one-off, emergency spending measure, I’m not sure you can call a return to pre-stimulus investment a “reduction.” If we simply kept all stimulus programs intact forever and ever it would be akin to adding $800 billion to our deficit annually, not exactly a financially or politically sound proposition.

The bigger problem is that liberals’ argument ignores the reason governmental support of science funding has been declining relative to GDP. The problem is that the government over the last four decades has been forced to spend on other things. Our mandatory spending, on such things as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, has been driven upwards, leaving less and less to be spent on discretionary budget items. Moreover it is not going to get better without major changes. The CBO predicts that “federal spending on major mandatory health care programs will grow from roughly 5 percent today to about 10 percent in 2035 and will continue to increase thereafter. “

As the following chart from the Heritage Foundation shows, the increase in costs of entitlements and anti-poverty programs are forcing reductions elsewhere.

If we want to increase our investment and math and science as a pathway to future prosperity we must understand one thing: we are not working with unlimited funds. We can’t simply increase science investment because it is a good idea. A budget requires prioritization. Making math and science a priority means making something else less of a priority.

Sadly, prioritization is even difficult given that our budget is being tyrannized by entitlement spending. Now, and especially in the future, these programs are taking up such a large slice of the budgetary pie that there simply isn’t enough money to pay for core government functions, much less science grants. That is why fiscal conservatism, through principled spending, is the true path toward promoting scientific advancement.

For an example as to why, look no further than Texas. Doing research for this post, I googled “math and science investment” in an attempt to find long term trends in how much the government spent. To my surprise one of the top returns was an article entitled “Perry announces math and science investment.” The Perry the article is referring to is the Republican governor of Texas, Rick Perry. As it turns out, in 2009, right in the heart of the recession, Texas announced it was investing $160 million to expand Texas Science, Technology, Engineering and Math academies. But how!?! After all, Texas doesn’t have an income tax and has one of the nation’s lowest overall tax burdens. Yet through shrewd spending and their ability to attract businesses to the state, Texas has weathered the economic storm better than most, even managing to maintain an $8 billion “rainy day “ fund. This financial flexibility, accomplished by keeping government spending relatively low, is what enabled them to increase their science and math spending in response to a need. The federal government lacks that flexibility.

Don’t be fooled into thinking that solving our economic issues are as simple as giving more money to math and science. It would be a good start and a great investment. But Medicare and Social Security, programs liberals love, are stopping us from doing so.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director

I’m not sure Toby Keith or Hank Williams Jr. were thinking politics when they sang, “a little less talk and a lot more action,” but it pretty much sums of the mood of the electorate in 2010. People were tired of Washington paying lip service to our biggest problems while in practice following their own agenda.

The clearest example came from the economy. The economic collapse had led to sky-high unemployment and persistent joblessness for many Americans. Nevertheless, Democrats had their blinders on, focusing like a laser on healthcare reform while the economy continued to decline. Of course, that’s what Democrats were doing, not what they were saying.

Throughout the year Democrats consistently said they were focusing on jobs. In President Obama’s state of the union he said that high unemployment “is why jobs must be our number one focus in 2010.” But as of June, the only plan Democrats had come up with was the so-called “Recovery Summer” that was meant to highlight the success of the stimulus bill. That began a trend for Democrats. Rather than put forth any ideas on how to jump-start the economy, they simply relabeled and repackaged existing ideas into jobs bills. Nancy Pelosi said a cap-and-trade energy bill is all about “jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs.” She also said that passing Obamacare would lead to the creation of four million jobs (almost half of the total jobs lost during the recession.)

Americans grew tired of Democrats’ talk. They wanted results. Frankly, they wanted a party that would live up to its promises. And Republicans made big promises. They promised a smaller, less spend-happy government, a promise that is short in words but long in deed. As new Speaker of the House John Boehner explained it, “it’s pretty clear the American people want us to do something about cutting spending here in Washington and helping to create and environment where we’ll get jobs back.”

So now it is the Republicans’ chance to live up to their words.

They’re off to a fast start. In the month since the elections the Republicans have already:

• Stopped the omnibus spending bill,
• Repealed the “Gephardt Rule” which provides automatic increases in the debt limit upon the adoption of a new budget resolution,
• Changed the pay-go rules so that bills must be offset in longer windows than just 10-years

But one recently unveiled change in the House rules may be their biggest step yet towards reining in our unruly deficit. The rule creates a “lock box” for any money saved through spending cuts passed through the House. The idea is to ensure that the money is put toward deficit reduction rather than simply spent elsewhere. Currently, the House rules and budget process encourage any “savings” in the form of spending cuts to merely be plowed into other government programs. The result is that spending cuts never lead to a smaller government, only to a reorganization of the same big government.

Brenan Buck, spokesman for the House GOP transition team said that,

“The reforms included in this package provide the House with new tools to achieve the goal of reining in out of control spending in Washington. The new spending reduction account allows members to explicitly dedicate savings from an amendment to spending reduction – something that under current House rules can only be done rhetorically.”

Republicans are done with rhetoric. They understand that it’s time we start to get things done. In other words, it’s time for a little less talk, and a lot more action.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director

The 24-hour news cycle has its negatives. Essentially it has meant that journalism is out, sensationalism is in. Analysis is out, punditry is in. But all that on-air face time does have one positive – it guarantees some entertaining gaffes. While this sound-byte dependency is slowly killing true political discourse, it at least lends itself to comedy. So in that vein, here are our Top 10 Dumb Quotes from Democrats:

Honorable Mentions:

• “As opposed tosStanding outside Fenway Park? In the Cold? Shaking hands?” – Massachusetts Senate candidate Martha Coakley responds to a Boston Globe question if she was being too passive in her campaigning strategy. Her lack of devotion (and blasphemous comments on the Red Sox) may have tipped the scales toward Republican Scott Brown in an election which set the tone for the rest of the year.
• ”His mom lived in Long Island for ten years or so. God rest her soul. And- although, she’s – wait – your mom’s still – your mom’s still alive. Your dad passed. God bless her soul.” – Joe Biden speaking to Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen.
• When asked if she had any comments on Israel, long-time White House correspondent Helen Thomas said, ‘Tell them to get the get the hell out of Palestine. Remember, these people [the Palestinians] are occupied and it’s their land. It’s not Germany, it’s not Poland.” When asked where Israeli Jews should go: “They should go home, to Poland, Germany and America and everywhere else.”

10. “And secondly, when is it ever a good idea to tie up a woman and ask her to kneel before a false idol, your god, that you call Aqua Buddha?” — Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway attempts to turn a college prank into a question of religion in a debate with Rand Paul. The strategy ultimately backfired, causing Conway’s unfavorability numbers to skyrocket leading up to the election.

9. “The rent is too damn high.” - New York gubernatorial candidate Jimmy McMillan during an on-air debate. Although technically he falls under the “Rent is Too Damn High Party” he is actually a registered Democrat. Don’t expect him to go away. He recently declared that he would run for President in 2012 saying, “I’m covering after [Obama’s] black a**.” He’s got a way with words.

8. “My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize.” – Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) expresses his concern that the planned buildup of military personnel on the island could cause it to literally tip over. After the hilarious media response, Johnson tried to clarify his statements saying that he was using a metaphor for reaching the tipping point of the islands fragile ecosystem. Sure.

7. ”Now, they’re saying I groped a male staffer. Yes, I did. Not only did I grope him, I tickled him until he couldn’t breathe and four guys jumped on top of me. It was my 50th birthday.” – Ex-Congressman Eric Massa (D-NY) stirs up trouble for himself while talking to Glen Beck after resigning over sexual harassment allegations by one of his aides. If the quote wasn’t ridiculous enough, it led to one of the more ludicrous articles we’ve ever read (HERE), literally attempting to scientifically answer the question of whether guy-on-guy tickling is normal.

6. “I’m exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for and deeply disappointed with where we are right now.” – Maryland resident Velma Hart expressed her disappointment in President Obama, whom she voted for in the 2008 presidential elections. In a sad epilogue to the story, Hart recently lost her job as the result of downsizing due to the persistently poor economy.

5. “This is a big f**king deal.” – US vice-president Joe Biden whispers this to Barack Obama during the signing of the historic U.S. healthcare program. It turned out to be a big deal for Republicans who leveraged voters’ dislike of the bill toward historic gains in the midterm elections.

4. “F**king retarded” – White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel blew up at liberal groups during a weekly strategy session over their plans to run attack ads at conservative Democrats who may have voted no on Obama’s health-care overhaul. Inter-party squabbling became a hallmark of the Democratic House in 2010.

3. ”Another thing we can do for jobs is make toys of me, especially for the holidays. Little dolls. Me. Like maybe little action dolls. Me in an army uniform, air force uniform, and me in my suit. They can make toys of me and my vehicle, especially for the holidays and Christmas for the kids. That’s something that would create jobs. So you see I think out of the box like that. It’s not something a typical person would bring up. That’s something that could happen, that makes sense. It’s not a joke.” – South Carolina Democratic Senate candidate Alvin Greene in an interview explaining his fool-proof plan to get the economy jumpstarted again. It’s all about thinking outside the box!

2. “Today is a big day in America. Only 36,000 people lost their jobs today, which is really good” – Majority Leader Harry Reid speaking on the Senate Floor about new job figures. The comments immediately backfired, showing that the public wasn’t buying the liberal spin over their big-spending attempts to fix the economy.

1. “We have to pass the (health care) bill so you can find out what is in it.” Nancy Pelosi. The comments became the metaphor for an out of touch Congress who simply refused to listen to the will of the people.

What did we miss?

by Brandon Greife, Political Director

Republicans must have been very good girls and boys this year. It seems like every week now they are getting a political gift. Between the election results, the approval of the tax package, and the judicial blow to Obamacare, the conservative stocking is just about jam packed. Well its time to make a little more room under the tree. Yesterday the Census Bureau announced the results of its decennial census that left many in the Republican party shouting “joy to the world.”

States in the South and the West are set to gain the most seats, with most coming at the expense of the Northeast and Midwest. This represents an enormous coup for Republicans and their future electoral hopes. Of the changes, ten seats are leaving states that voted with President Obama in 2008, while states that voted for John McCain are gaining eight seats.

Of the states set to gain seats, Texas will gain four, Florida will gain two, and Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah, and Washington will each gain one. Of those eight states, only Nevada and Washington have a Cook Partisan Voting Index that favors Democrats.

The electoral shakeup doesn’t end there. Early next year, state governments will begin carving up newly drawn House districts to satisfy the Constitutional requirement that each district have roughly the same number of people. Redrawing the district boundary lines may be a powerful tool for Republicans to further gain the upper hand from this decade’s population shifts.

Tim Storey, an expert in redistricting at the National Conference of State Legislatures, told the New York Times, “Republicans are in the best position since modern redistricting began.” That is the result of the historic gains made by Republicans in state governments this election cycle. All told, Republicans picked up 680 seats in state legislatures – the largest statehouse seat gain by either party in history. Republican representation in statehouses nationwide is larger than at any point since 1928. The new seats translate into new GOP control of 196 of the 336 districts whose borders are drawn by state legislatures, while Democrats control only 49. That is nearly a four-to-one advantage in redistricting.

Before you break into carols and start pounding eggnog in celebration, the results aren’t all tinsel and mistletoe. The geographic trends look promising. The South and West, which typically tilt Republican, are set to gain seats at the expense of traditionally Democratic areas. But the demographic trends are likely to tell a different story.

Over the next few months the Census Bureau will begin releasing more detailed results of the census, including data on race, ethnicity, and age. One would expect a significant percentage of the growth to be the result of the increasing population of minorities, particularly Hispanics. So although Republican states will see gains, it could be Democratic districts that have experienced the growth. Or as Tim Storey explains, “Just because Texas is getting four new seats does not mean Republicans will get four new Republicans to Congress.”

As this graph from Alan Abramowitz shows, black and other nonwhite populations will make up nearly 35 percent of the electorate by 2020.

Young voters, who went 66%-to-32% for Obama are also adding to their ranks each year. As today’s younger generations become a greater percentage of the electorate, Democrats could build a base of support that Republicans will struggle to overcome.

This is not to say that Republicans have lost the battle. It’s simply to say that we must get to work playing catch up. The conservative message is an inclusive one of self-empowerment and limited government, neither of which should preclude the party from being competitive among young adults or minorities. However, the Republican Party must make an increased effort to court these voters. This does not mean sacrificing principles, it means crafting and targeting your message in a way that resonates with all voter groups.

College Republicans stand on the front lines of this plan. We understand that younger generations are the most diverse in our nation’s history. Standing pat is akin to ceding the future. We must aggressively court young adults, who represent future voters, and minorities, who will increasingly become the deciding force in future elections. So even as we cheer the census results, understand that we’ve only won geographically, there is still much to be done demographically.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director

One of these things is not like the other . . .

As you can see, since the year 2000, older age groups have seen a sharp increase in their labor force participation. This has come at the expense of younger workers who are being squeezed out.

The USA Today explains, “the portion of people ages 16-24 in the labor market is at the lowest level since the government began keeping track in 1948, falling from 66% in 2000 to 55% this year.

The reason is that people aged 50 and up are staying employed longer than at any time in our history. That is just another consequence of the down economy. As people’s investments, mainly in the real estate market, became devalued, people felt less wealthy. To make up for the perceive loss of money, they felt they needed to work longer. And with it becoming increasingly difficult to find work, many older Americans simply hung on to the jobs they had.

The “crowding out” effect cannot be blamed on older workers. The true problem is an economic growth rate that is too small to absorb those who want to enter the labor force. In the third quarter of 2010, the economy (as measured by GDP) grew at a 2.5 percent rate. While certainly better than shrinkage, it won’t allow us to reach full employment for well over a decade. As the USA Today figures show, young adults and those preparing to enter the labor force will bear the brunt of that pain.

That is why it is imperative that we increase economic growth. Fortunately, Republicans have a plan. Incoming House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan recently told the New York Times, “We need growth…For my money, pro-growth tax policy, combined with spending cuts and entitlement reforms, are the necessary conditions to get this thing going in the right direction.”

In other words, we’ve got growth in three steps: 1. Favorable tax policy, 2. Spending cuts, 3. Entitlement reform. The compromise between Republicans and President Obama was an attempt to accomplish step one. Although, the deal is certainly imperfect, in that the temporary rates don’t nearly maximize growth in the way that permanent rates would have, it represents a positive sign that the parties can work together moving forward.

The work is far from done. For our government to ensure long-term growth, it must begin to address its reckless spending habits and unsustainable entitlement structure. Only then can we get economic growth on a path towards full employment. Only then will we be able to solve the problem of joblessness amongst younger generations.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director