Let’s assume that come January 2011 there is a Republican majority in the House and, at a minimum, a cloture-proof minority in the Senate.  Additionally, we’ll assume that conservatives are a majority in the Republican caucuses in both chambers.  All is well and we’re happily on our way to restoring sanity in the country.  Or, are we?

Even if this scenario plays out, the new conservative members of Congress (and the country) face major challenges that are just beginning next year.

The Beltway Plague

Will the newly elected conservatives fall under the spell cast by holding office in Washington?  Will they govern by the principles that got them elected or devolve into just a new crop of junior members of the ruling class?

We would like to think not, but we’ve been led astray before.  The Senate RINOs are in party leadership positions and control prime committee assignments.  Will the goodies they offer the new freshmen be too much to resist?  Or, will the incumbent RINOs threaten and coerce the new class?   

Egos and RINOs could quickly dilute the conservatives’ effectiveness, not to mention a loss of support back home.

Obama’s Blame Game

Should the new conservatives in Congress be cocky, foolish or simply dumb, they will miss or ignore the obvious: Obama will position them as his punching bag.  One can imagine Obama at the podium with his trusty teleprompter:  “I am working tirelessly to do the things that will restore the country….blah, blah, blah…and the radical Republicans continue their obstruction and refuse to support my efforts on behalf of the people.”

Obama will be focused on his 2012 reelection bid and hopes for a progressive comeback.  Nothing will deter him; he’s proven facts are meaningless and integrity irrelevant.  His entire administration will forcefully and continually negatively propagandize the conservatives.  Republicans should not underestimate the viciousness of the coming attacks and their potential impact.

The Mainstream Media Will Never Change

Obama’s blame game will be enthusiastically supported by the mainstream media.  If the Republicans even faintly believe the MSM will acknowledge the will of the people as expressed in 2010 election and take a more honest tact in its reporting, they are beyond naïve. 

Media attacks will be vicious and unfair.  As always, the Republicans will be misrepresented, ridiculed and, likely, suffer personal attacks.

The newly elected conservatives must work to please the voters who sent them to Washington, stick to their platforms and values.  Attempts to gain the approval of the MSM will prove disastrous.

The Magnitude of the Task

The election success in 2010 is not about repealing Obamacare.  It’s not about stopping Cap-and-Trade or Card-check.  It’s not even about deficit reduction or controlling insane spending.

The new conservatives in Congress are being sent there to begin the long and arduous task of reversing almost 50 years of subtle but effective efforts by a small minority of progressives to remake our representative republic, driven by personal responsibility and free enterprise, into a European-style social-democracy.

The lunacy of Obama’s first administration is only the culmination of the quietly subversive efforts of labor unions, academia, the media and social elitists that have been underway since the mid-sixties.

The effort to reverse the progressive momentum may take another 50 years, but it must begin with the conservatives elected to the 112^th Congress.  They must not only be successful for the next two years, but must lay the groundwork and fulfill their voters’ expectations so their successors can continue the work.

History will judge the actions of the 112^th Congress.  It can be one of those special points in time where a stand was taken and a country, as it was originally envisioned, was saved.

Or, historians, perhaps sadly, will write about the squandered opportunity for the republic’s salvation.

From the September 17 Los Angeles Times: Two L.A. agencies get $111 million in stimulus funds but have created only 55 jobs.

Today, media reports abound regarding this astounding testimonial to the inefficiency and wastefulness of Obama’s Stimulus debacle.  Easy arithmetic proves it: $111 million, 55 jobs…equals about $2 million per job.  Slam dunk for fiscal irresponsibility.

But suppose that $111 million had remained in the private sector and not been confiscated by the federal government.  How many jobs might have it created?

Let’s build a hypothetical.

For the sake of illustration we’ll look at a number of small businesses, each doing $5 million in sales.  And, we’ll assume each has a before tax profit of 15%, or $750,000. 

Also, these small businesses are Sub-Chapter S corporations with their income reflected on the owners’ personal tax returns.  Each business would fall in the 35% bracket and pay $262,500 in federal income taxes.

Therefore, the $111 million wasted in Los Angeles equates to the income tax paid by 423 small businesses using the assumptions above.

Without making this example more complicated (where a CPA would be required), we’ll assume that these small businesses were given an income tax holiday for a year.  Each owner would have an additional $262,500 to invest in his/her business.

If they use $100,000 to buy new equipment, increase inventories, etc. (which would indirectly add jobs, but we won’t count that), $162,500 could be used to hire new employees.  At $50,000 per employee (wages, taxes, benefits), each business could hire about 3 new employees.

423 small businesses X 3 new employees each = 1269 new employees.

Final Score:

New job creation when wealth is left in the private sector:  1269

New job creation when private wealth is seized by the federal government, strained through multiple levels of bureaucratic inefficiency and redistributed by a command-and-control, politically motivated regime:  55

Enough said.

No matter the degree of Republican success in the November elections the new conservative Senators and Representatives will face a challenge that will impact this country for years to come:  Can they live up to the expectations of the people who will vote for them in droves?

The progressive Obama regime has crystallized the dangers of big government intrusion, ruling class arrogance and excessive spending in the minds of the electorate; however, these dangers have been creeping up on us for decades. 

How could this happen in the US?

Short answer:  the people stopped paying attention to what the politicians were doing; therefore, the politicians stopped paying attention to the people.  It ain’t rocket science!

The people are now paying attention, very close attention, and, by all accounts, Republicans will win enough seats in the House and Senate to, at a minimum, neutralize the progressives’ agenda.  But will they?

An increasing number of conservative Americans feel they have become disenfranchised.  They believe politicians of all flavors are self-serving hacks… particularly in the case of House members who have strayed far beyond the desires of the Founders for Representatives who are close (philosophically and geographically) to their constituents. 

And, in the case of the Senate, the Seventeenth Amendment (replacing the states’ appointment of Senators with their popular election) retained the pseudo-aristocratic aura and 6-year terms of that chamber …providing even more insulation from accountability to the citizens.

Senators and Representatives are conditioned to believe there is little need to listen to the people.  Incumbents manipulate a system that almost guarantees reelection.  They believe they are rightfully entitled to their positions.

Will the new 112^th Congress have the intestinal fortitude, courage and lack of selfishness to change the institution?

Will Washington’s insular and ego-inflating environment quickly turn this ‘new’ crop of Senators and Congressman into reincarnations of the ‘old’ crop they replaced?  Just how much impact will private dining rooms, adoring staff and moneyed lobbyists have?  Will their passion and principles pale after two or six years of being courted by the media?  Just how important will it be for them to be accepted by the Washington ‘insiders’?

Only time will tell.  All human beings are fallible.  However, will enough of them display even a small portion of the Founders’ courage and fortitude?  None will be hung by the Redcoats if they fail.  But, should they fail so fails the country.

Now that the smoke has cleared and dust has begun to settle, what did we learn from Christine O’Donnell’s win over Mike Castle?

• O’Donnell’s victory capped off a primary season that dramatically displayed the  country’s unrest.
• Supposed shoo-in candidates backed by the national party (particularly Republican) turned out not to be the ‘gimmes’ most pundits believed they would be.
• Money, the life blood of campaigns according to conventional wisdom, can be trumped by passion and the internet.
• Professional politicians are out.  Candidates from the people (as in We The People) are in.
• Establishment-supported candidates are sore losers.  Mike Castle fails to call O’Donnell after the election, much less offer his endorsement.  Lisa Mulkowski toys with a write-in campaign in Alaska.  Classy, these establishment folks.
• Americans get it!  Washington’s arrogance, seizure of power, reckless fiscal policies and drift to the left has culminated with the Obama regime.  But, that drift has occurred over the last 50 years…and it may take that long to reverse it.
• Politicians who govern against the will of the people, no matter their party, will, ultimately, be held accountable.
• Voters assign bipartisan blame for the mess in which the country finds itself.
• The electorate fully recognizes that the November and future elections are very, very critical.  The periodic ebb and flow of political power shared between two entrenched parties must be replaced by a revolution at the polls. 
• Starting in January, the new crop of conservatives going to Congress takes the attitudes and tools to affect major change; it remains to be seen if they will have the resolve to achieve the expectations they have set for themselves.
• And, Karl Rove is not the cool, collected analyst most thought.  The inexplicable animus he directed towards Ms. O’Donnell significantly diminishes his reputation and brings his true motives into question.

The Republican establishment’s actions this election cycle may not be attributed to its inability to understand the country’s mood; they may understand it fully and choose to ignore it for self-serving reasons.

That leads to one quick question:  Could the obstinacy of today’s Republican establishment lead to minor third party status for the GOP???

Hmmm…

The usually ultra-cool Karl Rove comes close to losing it when discussing Christine O’Donnell’s victory with Sean Hannity.

Charles Krauthammer, normally the model of insightful and measured wisdom, laments the foolishness of a vote for O’Donnell.

The ballots had barely been counted and the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee announces it will not provide any general election funding to O’Donnell.

Mike Castle, the defeated 40-year political professional, refuses to endorse O’Donnell.

Seemingly, the basis of these reactions is that O’Donnell’s victory lessens the chances of Republicans taking over the Senate.  But, is that and should that be the ultimate goal? 

What good is a Republican majority should it be made up of members who won’t aggressively support a conservative agenda?  Have we not observed the havoc caused by Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe?

Mike Castle’s voting record has been well documented.  It is reasonable to assume that as another ‘moderate’ Republican Senator he would adopt the Snowe/Collins model and vote with the Democrats at the most inopportune times.

Certainly, a conservative majority in the Senate and the accompanying chairmanships, etc. are worthy goals.  But, what value is a Republican majority if it will not aggressively support conservative policies?  Is a 51-49 Republican majority better than a 49-51 conservative minority?  The question is even more relevant considering the vulnerable Democrat Senators who will be facing reelection in 2012 and be less likely to blindly support new progressive legislation.

The Republican establishment’s attacks on O’Donnell have focused on her life experiences, not her policies and philosophies.  She’s been through a foreclosure.  Over 1 in 10 Americans share that humiliating experience.  She’s had problems paying her bills; who the hell hasn’t? 

It may become surprising if what some consider personal weaknesses morph into strengths in the eyes of empathetic Delaware voters.

Can O’Donnell win?  The pundits predicted 30,000 voters would turn out for the O’Donnell/Castle contest.  The final tally was almost 58,000.  Castle outspent O’Donnell 10 to 1…and lost by 6 percentage points. 

O’Donnell has become the underdog’s underdog.  She’s fought (and is still fighting) the Republican establishment.  She’ll be battling conventional wisdom that flatly states she has no chance of beating her Democrat opponent in November. 

But, she will become the poster child of the uprising occurring in the country today.

Will that translate into campaign contributions and support from all over the country?  Is Delaware’s historically electorate as liberal as its image?  Who knows?

What we do know is that a fired-up conservative base in Delaware believes the future of the country is a lot more important than preserving the power base of the establishment Republicans.

And, the establishment Republicans…as they did with senatorial primary victories by Rand Paul, Sharon Angle, Marco Rubio and others…continue to pout, and pout, and pout…

I guess we should be strangely pleased.

In his column today, the New York Times’ ever-entertaining Eugene Robinson seems to have reluctantly accepted the unthinkable…a major conservative victory in November. 

However, he wistfully holds out the hope that poor Nancy Pelosi won’t have to move out of her office.

And the reason behind the upcoming electoral travesty: we, Americans, are spoiled brats.

Interesting.

The progressives have accused us of racism and bigotry…

Being Nazis and misguided homophobes…

Hating all Muslims due to our religious intolerance…

Segregationists and members of the KKK…

Angry (well, that one’s correct), backward and just plain dumb…

Teabaggers and that we want to destroy the planet…

Christian, gun-toting Neanderthals prone to violence…

Mindless zombies under the spell of manipulative conservative commentators…

etc., etc., etc.

Hell, being a spoiled brat ain’t so bad.

The latest Real Clear Politics analysis of the toss-up House and Senate races yields some interesting facts.

• 8 toss-up Senate races; 6 currently Democrat, 2 Republican
• 35 toss-up House races; 34 currently Democrat, 1 Republican

A further look at these races shows a disproportionate of House and Senate toss-ups are in traditionally Democrat states, but more notably, they are states with high union membership according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Six of the 8 toss-up Senate races are in states where union membership as a percent of total worker is higher than the national average of 13%:

• California – 18.3%
• Illinois – 18.3%
• Nevada – 17.2%
• Ohio – 15.4%
• Washington – 21.5%
• Wisconsin – 15.8%

 In the House toss-up races, 22 of the 35 seats are likewise in highly unionized states.

• California (1 seat) – 18.3%
• Illinois (2 seats) – 18.3%
• Massachusetts (1 seat) – 18%
• Michigan (7 seats) – 19.9%
• New York (3 seats) – 27.2%
• Ohio (2 seats) – 15.4%
• Oregon (1 seat) – 18.5%
• Pennsylvania (3 seats) – 16.2%
• West Virginia (1 seat) – 15.4%
• Wisconsin (1 seat) – 15.8%

And, just what is the relevance of all these numbers?  Is there a potential relationship between organized labor’s strength in a given state and the outcome of a closely contested race? 

Well, duh, yes!

Many of these states have entrenched Democrat machines (read: Illinois and New York as examples.)  Combine that with a strong union presence and stir in an abundance of social justice organizations and you get an environment ripe for corruption…both at the polls and in the vote counting.

Perhaps conservatives will sweep to a major victory in November, and if the left cooks the books in a few elections, what should it matter?

It matter a lot.  Progressive thugs have a track record of corruption; why would they not try it again.  And, even if conservatives win big, it is unconscionable for one single voter to be disenfranchised.  Equally unacceptable are votes from the deceased, multiple votes and other antics that have been employed historically.

The conservative and Republican establishments must be more vigilant even if it anticipates a major victory…for two reasons.

First, complacency is a sure path to defeat.

Second, and more importantly, trust in the elective process must be reestablished.  With all the other troubles we are facing, a restoral of confidence in the integrity of our political process is absolutely necessary.

Despite the hardship and uncertainty brought on by the miserable economy, the driving imperative of the anticipated conservative tidal wave in the November elections is long-building boiling rage human beings feel when constantly belittled and insulted by those who believe themselves superior in all ways.

A pending foreclosure, unemployment and distress about the future of one’s children and grandchildren are, admittedly, stimulants for political change.  However, conventional wisdom has deemed the hardships of a sinking economy as the prime reason for today’s discontent.  But, is the economy THE motivator for what the passion we see in the country today?

The prejudice and bigotry (yes, bigotry) heaped upon average Americans by the ‘ruling class’ makes that which is supposedly directed towards Muslims pale in comparison.  Whole segments of our population are accused of everything from racism to being, well, just ignorant.  What other element of our population undergoes endures such ugly, broad based stereotyping?

The assault on us backward Americans has intensified recently, accentuated by the panic of progressives and their media supporters, but it is not new. 

We were stupid zealots when supporting out troops unabashedly…not just in the current conflicts, but those that came before.

We were not intellectually capable of understanding, much less believing, the doomsday predictions of the global warming crowd.

We are essentially pagans for having the audacity to find comfort in our spiritual beliefs.

We’re not clever enough to understand how the congressional wizards designing the Healthcare Bill can spend $500 billion…twice, and only count it once!

The list could go on and on.

A stack of unpaid bills when unemployed creates stress, deep concern and a desire for political change.

Years of insults of our intelligence, character, morals, and religious beliefs call for fundamental and cultural change.

It’s our pride and our souls, stupid.

Let me get this right.  RNC attorneys are jetting to Alaska on behalf of Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s campaign as the tabulation of absentee ballots moves forward and a possible recount looms in the future.  Hmmm.

The election was a Republican primary.  Joe Miller, as I understand it, is a Republican.  Murkowski, also by understanding, is a Republican.  And, is not RNC actually the Republican National Committee. 

Am I naive?  Aren’t national political committees actually to remain neutral in intra-party campaigns?  Does the RNC not represent the Republican Party in its entirety?  Apparently not.

I have followed Michael Steele and his variousgaffes.  And, with interest, I note millions of dollars traditionally destined for the RNC coffers now deposited in the accounts of various Senate, House and Haley Barbour’s and Karl Rove’s fundraising PACs.  Wonder why?

Steele’s Bozo-the-clown impersonations pale in importance to the RNC’s last line of defense of the pre-1994 ‘go-along-to-get-along’ GOP…coupled with a serious case of ‘Geez, we’re losing power’ syndrome. 

Mulkowski threatens (or at least does not rule out) an Independent or Libertarian candidacy if she loses to Miller.  And, the RNC’s legal beagles rush to Juneau on her behalf.  Will they not also arrive soon in Tallahassee demanding hanging-chad votes for Bill McCollum?

Today’s news reports of Bill McCollum’s terse post-election comments as well as speculation some Republicans could endorse Alex Sink for Governor are very insightful.

McCollum’s statement sounded very similar to his campaign ads, an encore of the speculation about Rick Scott”s honesty.  There was no endorsement of Scott and one questions if that endorsement will ever be forthcoming.  McCollum’s antics could be attributed to emotions of a sore loser but it is likely more.

The deeply entrenched Republican establishment in Florida, which includes McCollum, appears more concerned about losing its power base than the resonating philosophical message sent by the voters.  The Republican elite’s power is threatened and, like all politicians, power is, ultimately, the sole reason that elite exists.

Consider just the thought of Republican leaders supporting Sink.   The message is loud and clear:  “We know Alex; she knows us.  Us elites, Republican and Democrat, are all comfortable with the Tallahassee way of doing things.  Our boat won’t be rocked too much.”

Should McCollum continue his childish behavior and other Republican leaders indeed support Sink, the rage of conservative voters directed toward Tallahassee will equal that currently reserved for Washington.  And, the ‘incumbent politicians are all the same’ paradigm will again be reinforced.

In the end, politicians want to be reelected.  And, Florida Republicans are politicians.  They will ultimately endorse the candidate they feel provides the best opportunity for their reelection.  Will that candidate be Sink or Scott?

The answer should be obvious to most reasonably sane observers.  But who ever considered lifetime professional politicians of being reasonably sane?