Looking back for the last few years it is stunning to see how the Democrats squandered their power from the 2006-2008 victories.  They misread their mandate and governed poorly; passing unpopular legislation using the most partisan means.  The damage is far beyond the loss of the House.

The Republicans, dead in the water just a few years ago, swept state positions. These are  the breeding grounds of the party’s future leaders and they are quickly rising to prominence.  Chris Christie of New Jersey, Mitch Daniels of Indiana, Rick Scott of Florida, and Scott Walker of Wisconsin are showing the kind of leadership the public is craving. They are refusing to kick the problems to the next election, and they hold their own party accountable.

Freshman Congressmen Alan West, Marco Rubio, and others show a depth of understanding and a commitment to governing principles long forgotten.  Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley show great promise.

These rising starts are eclipsing the older icons such as Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.

The Republicans are building an incredibly strong bench of new leaders on the back of those largely ignored state level victories.  While there are other names that will surely grow from those victories, note the  names I omitted.  This is an incredibly strong bench without Sarah Palin, and I omitted Michelle Bachman.  Palin is the face of the Republicans that the opposition would prefer.  To them she lacks intellectual heft and experience.  To me Nancy Pelosi makes Sarah Palin look like a Rhodes Scholar.

Michelle Bachman is a great voice, but she is also associated with the perception of Tea Party simplicity (a misperception in my opinion).

With or without Palin or Bachman, the Republican are rapidly building leaders with intelligence, depth and experience.  The Democrats, by comparison seem to have nobody in the wings.  Looking past Obama and the Clintons, few capable leaders  seem to be emerging.  This is an incredible reversal in just two years.  Their defeat in 2010 has deep long term implications for their party, depending on how the Republicans use their power this time.

When asked what constitutional authority gave the government the right to mandate citizens to buy health insurance, Nancy Pelosi contemptuously replied ” Are you serious?”

Yes Nancy we are and so are judges who take the constitution more seriously than you.

The administration used the Commerce Clause to justify its control grab, but that has failed.  Then they used the Necessary and Proper Clause, but that was rejected as well.  In the Wall Street Journal Online law professors Randy Barnett and Elizabeth Foley explains Judge Vinson’s Ruling in The Nuts and Bolts of the ObamaCare Ruling.

Excerpts:

Recognizing the vulnerability of relying on the Commerce Clause alone, the Obama administration in the Florida case shifted its emphasis to the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution. That clause empowers Congress to enact “all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” its enumerated powers. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly explained, the Necessary and Proper Clause does not expand the scope of Congress’s enumerated powers. Instead, it gives Congress the ability to select among various means of exercising them—for example, the enumerated power to “establish post offices” necessarily and properly includes a power to print stamps.

This novel use of the Necessary and Proper Clause, if allowed to stand, would fundamentally transform our constitutional scheme from limited to unlimited federal power, narrowing the scope of individual liberty. In Judge Vinson’s words, “the more harm the statute does, the more power Congress could assume for itself under the Necessary and Proper Clause. This result would, of course, expand the Necessary and Proper Clause far beyond its original meaning, and allow Congress to exceed the powers specifically enumerated in Article I.”

HKO comments:

Besides being ridiculously complicated, poorly understood, the most partisan major legislation ever passed, and lubricated with bribes and lies, this bill has trouble passing even basic constitutional muster.  For some the Constitution is just an impediment to central control and power that must be overcome;  for others the Constitution is an impediment to central control and power that must be respected.

Not too many surprises that were not predictable. I was surprised that Reid won even though I thought Angle was weak. Intrade missed that one. Angle and O’Donnell may have overcome inexperience and qualifications in the primary, but that did not equate to a final victory. Yet Marco Rubio came far and won; he was just compelling and exuded competence. Quality did count on most races.

I was surprised to see Murkowski pull a Lieberman in Alaska.  (possibly)

Again we learned that money alone does not win races, at least not beyond a certain point. Meg Whitman outspent Jerry brown in multiples and lost. No amount of money will overcome gross demographic or structural disadvantages.

Interesting to note that the new young faces belonged to ‘conservatives’ (Rubio, Haley) and that the return of the old tired faces (Boxer, Frank) belonged to the ‘progressives’.

Erick Erickson, the conservative (also young, vibrant, and very influential editor of Red State) noted that the real gain for conservatives was in the state houses.  The number of new governors and state legislatures turning red is significant.

One reason is the acknowledgement that the Democrats will be facing a much wider swatch of red real estate in 2012. But for me the bigger issue is that the Republicans are growing a much much larger base of experienced leaders. At a time when Bill Clinton can no longer fill a high school auditorium this is a serious advantage. The Democrats are in serious need of new blood. There is no depth in new vibrant leadership beyond the president, and he has now hit a mighty wall.

In Georgia’s 8^th district Jim Marshall lost to Austin Scott.  He has survived 4 previous campaigns, some of them close and contentious.  Jim is a very experienced Viet Nam vet and is about as blue dog as a Democrat can get.  He is smart, independent in his thinking and supported by many Republicans although he is a Democrat. His constituent services are probably the best in Congress.  He voted against the health care bill and even wrote a great article in National Review ( a conservative magazine) about why market forces can be tapped to correct many health care problems.

He campaigned against Pelosi and is a strong supporter of the second amendment.  His fatal liability was the large ‘D’ next to his name.

The Democrat’s agenda was so arrogant, heavy handed, and reckless that many voters who were never so adversely partisan before refused to vote for any Democrat.  Jim Marshall was a victim of a reckless Democrat administration. How many other blue dogs facing the same fate will consider switching parties?

Pelosi, Reid and Obama were not just a disaster for their ill conceived and irresponsible legislation. They were a disaster for their own party.

Nancy Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi states that the new unemployment benefits package should be passed because unemployment benefits stimulate the economy and thus create jobs.  They are in fact, according to her, one of the best job creators because the unemployment benefits are so desperately needed that they will spend the money immediately thus stimulating the economy and generating jobs. The only thing more disturbing than her own belief in this ludicrous comment is that she is only two heartbeats away from being the president.

Arthur Laffer is one of the most insightful and successful economists because  his policies actually having been shown to work.  True understanding of complex systems can be demonstrated in the power to predict.  His predictions and rationales have demonstrated that understanding of wealth creation and economic behavior.  Laffer wrote a retort to Pelosi’s Alice in Wonderland statement, without mentioning her name, likely to avoid embarrassing her with her own words, in a recent Wall Street Journal article “Unemployment Benefits Aren’t Stimulus”, explaining how paying unemployment benefits does not create jobs.

Not only is the payment itself an incentive not to work, Laffer explains, but the dollar spent by the unemployed must be paid by another taxpayer so the net incentive must total zero, not including the huge costs the government incurs to execute the transfer that someone else must also pay for.  We have strayed so far from common sense that it is now considered profound just to state the obvious.

Arthur Laffer

George W. Bush was deemed an idiot by his strongest critics for his lack of eloquence at the microphone.  I am far more concerned with the statements from leaders that show a complete lack of understanding of the way the world works, a contempt for common sense, or a blind rejection of empirical evidence. Eloquence makes none of this more tolerable; it only makes it more disturbing.

YouTube holds political leaders more accountable that all the journalists in the field.  “We have to pass this bill so we can see what’s in it, and  “I have to listen to the experts so I will know whose ass to kick,”  become highly viewed video symbols of our leaders’ incompetence.

I was listening to a lady on talk radio explain why it was a good idea to spend stimulus money to help the owners of convenience stores puts racks of fresh vegetables next to the Slim Jims and Yahoo chocolate drinks.  It was amazing to listen to her quote the reams of data used to substantiate why this was both useful and necessary. In an age of unlimited information we apparently do not have to be restricted by common sense; we can substantiate anything.

I question whether such lunacy would have found a media outlet in the days before infinite channels. Perhaps the biggest benefit of less media was being forced to be more judicious in bringing viewpoints to the public airways, but the cost would be the risk that we may be spared the statements that show the true failings of our top leaders.

Dorothy reveals the Wizard

We may find comfort in illusions but if Dorothy and her posse did not pull back the curtains and expose the wizard they never would have been able to return to Kansas.

With a substantial majority in both houses the Democrats are having a difficult time passing the health care bill. Either the bill sucks or the party leaders; Pelosi and Reid are political incompetents.

While I agree that the bill is just disastrous in its content, the raw political arrogance and incompetence only makes it worse. The Slaughter rule that threatens to consider the bill affirmed without a vote will likely cause such outrage that many of those sitting on the fence will likely tilt against it, especially if the vote is dragged out beyond the Easter break.

If it is passed through without an up or down vote, the losers will be the Democrats who stood against it.  With no up or down vote, the voters can only assume that EVERY Democrat voted for it. In other words forcing this bill through with this method will hurt the Democrats much more in the coming election.

The critical miscalculation is assuming that this bill is all or nothing; it must be passed now or never.  Such thinking is extremely limiting. Power comes from expanding options, not limiting them.  There are plenty of options for improving health coverage and controlling costs that are not covered in this bill.

The Democratic leadership is inflicting itself with defeat for years to come.  This is an incredible feat considering the leads they had only a year ago.  A good bill does not need bribes and favoritism to pass, and it certainly does not need to consider radical procedural modifications to game the vote. The only bipartisan part of this bill seems to be the opposition.