Where Do The Dems Go From Here?

Yesterday, Obama's incompetence and unpopular policies paid him back in spades.  Of course, I am referring to the double defeat in New York and Nevada.  In the wake of the election results, Democrats are pointing the finger at the White House.  Most strategists seem to believe that these elections were primarily referendums on Obama, and that the voters are clearly voicing their displeasure with the President.  The WH denies all of this, and is spinning it a number of directions.  I tend to agree with Prof. Jacobson's point that when a district that has been held by the Dems since 1923, and in which registered voters list themselves as Dem's 3-1, it is not lingering feelings about Anthony Weiner that influenced the election.  That particular district in NY surely has taken note of the events in Egypt, Libya and Turkey with regard to the increase in anti-Israel rhetoric, verging on action, and the related deafening silence from the WH.  Obama has simply made it clear that he is no friend of Israel's.  But that is just one of a myriad of reasons that voters would make Obama the focus of these elections.

Politico ran an article today about the aftermath of the elections.  Two things caught my eye.  First was Henry Waxman's attempt at scare tactics, wherein he claimed that the Republicans want

to repeal the 20th century, the New Deal, the Fair Deal, to turn us back to the robber barons running the country, and to eviscerate the environmental and other regulations to protect public health and safety,” said Waxman. “And to cut spending in ways that would be very harmful to people who rely on government.”

Well, there it is isn't it?  Here's the heart of the Democratic party.  New Deal, government regulations, protect people who are dependent upon the government.  One could argue that Henry is merely worried about his own job retention, as any cuts in government spending could be harmful to his job.  There is a certain school of thought that suggests that fewer restrictions on private enterprise would result in fewer people being reliant on the government.  I have never understood why Democrats believe that this tactic works: Republicans want to undo everything and send us back to a time of slavery, a time of darkness and cold, a time without electricity and running water.  It's not true, and it can't happen.  We can have an EPA and still not try to put a boot on the necks of corporations through drastic regulations and moratoriums on licenses.  No matter, though, Waxman painted a pretty good picture of how he and his colleagues view private enterprise;  small business is good, until  it grow into big business, which is bad.  Democrats punish success and reward (and encourage) failure.

The second thing was the view from the labor unions.  Labor wants Obama to show that he is with the Unions.  This seems absurd because the unions vote Democrat.  Read deeper into this and it's clear that the unions are feeling left out and abandoned by Obama; he is not giving them enough encouragement.  Translation: union workers are not feeling motivated to support Obama.  They won't support a Republican candidate, but they might stay home, and that amounts to nearly the same thing.

What we saw in November of 2010 is a continuing trend: Obama has lost momentum, he has lost the interest of his party, and he is losing America.