Pirate's Cove

Yes they are

Negativity Wins the Senate

Republicans would like the country to believe that they took control of the Senate on Tuesday by advocating a strong, appealing agenda of job creation, tax reform and spending cuts. But, in reality, they did nothing of the sort.

Even the voters who supported Republican candidates would have a hard time explaining what their choices are going to do. That’s because virtually every Republican candidate campaigned on only one thing: what they called the failure of President Obama. In speech after speech, ad after ad, they relentlessly linked their Democratic opponent to the president and vowed that they would put an end to everything they say the public hates about his administration. On Tuesday morning, the Republican National Committee released a series of get-out-the-vote images showing Mr. Obama and Democratic Senate candidates next to this message: “If you’re not a voter, you can’t stop Obama.”

I’m sure that is somehow raaaaacist.

The most important promises that winning Republicans made were negative in nature. They will repeal health care reform. They will roll back new regulations on banks and Wall Street. They will stop the Obama administration’s plans to curb coal emissions and reform immigration and invest in education.

Most of us do not see that as a negative. We see the initial policies as negatives.

Virtually all Democratic candidates distanced themselves from Mr. Obama and refused to make the case that there has been substantial progress on jobs and economic growth under this administration.

Oh, so they were negative on Obama, too. Good to know.

But Republicans also had little to say about reviving the economy, and their idea of creating jobs seems to be limited to building the Keystone XL oil pipeline, cutting taxes further and crying “repeal Obamacare” at every opportunity.

Well, except for noting the dozens of economic bills currently stuck in the Democrat controlled Senate, where Harry Reid refuses to all votes on those bills.

In theory, full control of Congress might give Republicans an incentive to reach compromise with Mr. Obama because they will need to show that they can govern rather than obstruct. They might, for example, be able to find agreement on a free-trade agreement with Pacific nations.

You’ll hear a lot about how Republicans need to compromise with Dems and Obama, despite D and O rarely ever doing the same.

But their caucuses in the Senate and the House will be more conservative than before, and many winning candidates will feel obliged to live up to their promises of obstruction. Mr. McConnell has already committed himself to opposing a minimum-wage increase, fighting regulations on carbon emissions and repealing the health law.

Let’s hope they do go with a fiscal Conservative agenda.

“Just because we have a two-party system doesn’t mean we have to be in perpetual conflict,” Mr. McConnell said in his victory speech. As the new Senate leader, he must now prove those are not empty words.

Remember when the NY Times was calling for Dems to work with Bush and Republicans when they handily won in November, 2006? I remember Paul Krugman whining about how the 2006 midterms were All About Bush

President Bush isn’t on the ballot tomorrow. But this election is, nonetheless, all about him. The question is whether voters will pry his fingers loose from at least some of the levers of power, thereby limiting the damage he can inflict in his two remaining years in office.

That was the day before the 2006 midterms.

The Washington Post editorial board is also amusing

REPUBLICANS COLLECTED a significant victory in Tuesday’s midterm elections, gaining control of the Senate to go with their control of the House. With that win comes an increased level of responsibility for the nation’s fortunes. They can no longer behave like a petty opposition party. If the GOP wants to prove before 2016 that it is better at governing than the Democrats, this is its chance to address a backlog of problems — to seek results, rather than continue to blame others for failure.

Remember all those editorials about Obama Blamestorming away his failures?

Republicans, then, should treat the next two years as an opportunity to legislate in good faith, not to push serious work beyond the next election in the fantasy that the country has permanently turned in a more conservative direction. For his part, Mr. Obama should not embark on his final two years with an assumption of Republican intransigence that would be self-fulfilling.

So, Republicans should “compromise”, and really, good luck with that part about Obama. He lives for division.

But, after all is said, and the sour grapes are ground away, the Democratic Underground was probably the most sour of all.