Whose Fault Is It, Really?

   President Obama continues to maintain that the reason his party was "shellacked" (his word) in the recent mid-term elections was that Democrats didn't "communicate" their messages well enough. Failure to communicate might account for a "spanking," or maybe a "drubbing." But a "shellacking" goes a lot deeper than blaming the electorate for not getting your nuanced brillance.

And diving deeper, a researcher from California now says that the president's legislative agenda, not his golden pipes, accounted for 32 seats of the historic losses suffered by Democrats on November 2.

Eric McGhee of the Public Policy Institute of California focused on the four most unpopular Obama initiatives: the TARP bailout, the failed stimulus bill, healthcare taxation-and-annexation, and the carbon tax known as cap and trade. He compared Democrats who voted for those four boat anchors to lawmakers who voted against them. The result? For each time a Democrat running for reelection lined up behind Pres. Obama on these four bills he or she lost anywhere from two-thirds of a percentage point to four percentage points in his election re-bid. Losses were obviously greater in the more moderate districts.

McGhee's conclusion is that Republican gains would have topped  out at 210 House seats, rather that the 242 they'll have in the next Congress, had the losing lawmakers not lined up behind the White House Pied Pipers.

Former Bush election engineer Karl Rove points out that McGhee's analysis demonstrates that legislators who buck the will of their constituents end up paying their own postage come January.

Meanwhile the fingerpointing of Democrat failure continues--it's the president's fault, it's Speaker Pelosi's fault, it's Harry Reid's fault, It's Fox News' fault, Rush Limbaugh's fault and on and on.  The real story is that a bunch of congressmen who at some point stopped listening to their constituents have only themselves to blame.

Just thought you might like to know.