Alvin Greene just lost to Senator Jim DeMint in South Carolina the other day. Watch Greene's concession speech and tell me if you agree: if only he'd run in California, Senator Greene would be on his way to Washington in January.

By a margin of roughly 70%, Oklahoma voters approved Question 755, which forbids state courts from "considering" Sharia law in their decisions. A challenge has, of course, already been filed under Establishment Clause grounds. Not sure I buy that -- the measure doesn't say that courts should consider other religions. Presumably, courts are there to enforce the secular law and should not base a decision on any religion.

But then why single out Sharia? The WSJ Law Blog reports that constitutional scholars are "scratching their heads" over that question. My hunch is that lawmakers in the Sooner State are looking at the example of Britain, where judgments of private Sharia tribunals can be enforced in the public Courts -- never mind Sharia's slightly, er, unconventional evidentiary standards (eg, a woman's testimony is worth half a man's), Her Majesty's Courts are there to give them the force of law.

As between UK and OK, I choose the latter.

The Federal Reserve Wednesday unveiled a controversial new plan to buy U.S. Treasurys, hoping to spur growth in a disappointingly slow U.S. economy.

After two days of discussions, Fed officials decided to go ahead with a much anticipated program, saying they will buy $600 billion of U.S. government debt over the next eight months.

The Fed's policy-setting body said it stands ready to purchase more bonds if the economy's persistent weakness leads inflation to remain too low and unemployment too high.

The Fed's first $1.75 trillion bond-buying program, which ran from Dec. 2008 to March 2010, is credited with helping the economy when the U.S. was hit by a financial crisis and a deep recession. The latest move is more controversial because the economy is now growing -- albeit slowly -- and financial markets are no longer under severe stress.

Continue reading at online.wsj.com.

At its annual dinner in Manhattan earlier this month, the Human Life Foundation honored our own Bill McGurn. Unable to attend, I just came across Bill's remarks online. (He's far too modest to post them himself.) Bill spoke powerfully and beautifully about the sanctity of human life, but nohting he said proved more powerful or beautiful than his acknowledgement of his family:

When you adopt your children, people have a way of telling you how wonderful you are for making such a sacrifice. So I ask you: Look over at my three beautiful girls and tell me: Does that look like a sacrifice? Tonight I stand here rich in strong women who love life – my bride, my mother, my mother-in-law, my three daughters. So when I think of the sacrifice here, my thoughts go to three women, somewhere in China, whom I do not know and will never meet. My prayer as an adoptive parent is this: That I might be the father worthy of their hopes and their sacrifice.

Read Bill's remarks here.

Whilst we've concerned ourselves with the results of the House, Senate and gubernatorial races, we may have overlooked one of the most consequential results of the historic 2010 election:

Republicans picked up 680 seats in state legislatures, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures -- the most in the modern era. To put that number in perspective: In the 1994 GOP wave, Republicans picked up 472 seats. The previous record was in the post-Watergate election of 1974, when Democrats picked up 628 seats.

The GOP gained majorities in at least 14 state house chambers. They now have unified control -- meaning both chambers -- of 26 state legislatures.

That control is a particularly bad sign for Democrats as they go into the redistricting process. If the GOP is effective in gerrymandering districts in many of these states, it could eventually lead to the GOP actually expanding its majority in 2012.

Republicans now hold the redistricting "trifecta" -- both chambers of the state legislature and the governorship -- in 15 states.

Here's one to file away in the day-after-the-election shenanigans folder:

Solyndra, the poster child of green energy in Silicon Valley, that was going to create the jobs of the future, announced that it will layoff 17.5% of its workers just one day after the elections. The company received $535 million in U.S. tax payer bailout to create jobs. President Obama and Senator Barbara Boxer visited and campaigned at the plant.

...Tax payers own 73% of the company. The company said it could not complete with lower cost products from China.

I have not yet seen a copy of my former boss's memoirs, Decision Points. Nor was I involved in its writing in any way. So I can't speak to what's inside it.

However, I did read the review that ran in the New York Times today, which reads like a string of cocktail party snark. I leave the psychoanalysis to others. What jumps out about this review, however, is that it never mentions 9/11. Remember this is supposed to be the *New York* Times. Whatever else you might say about the Bush presidency, and you can argue with the policy, the most obvious fact of his Administration was that it was defined by the attacks of 9/11. As a former WH colleague put it, not mentioning that 9/11 in this review would be like not mentioning Pearl Harbor in a retrospective about FDR. Is that a service to their readers?

George W. Bush never forgot that, even if the folks at 40th and 8th have.

You might recall back on October 8 we debated the merits or horrors (depending on your point of view) of NY Mayor Bloomberg and company barring food stamp recipients from buying soda.

My libertarian, Gadsden-Flag-loving blood boiled at the thought of turning welfare recipients into controlled chattel. Remember that in an economy like we have now not all who receive government largess are deadbeats – some have just suffered some very bad beats. I hate government control of people – even people on welfare.

Others disagreed. The taxpayer was being treaded upon. So those folks adopted a contractual view of things: If you want to dance you have to pay the band. If you want the government food stamps the government can set the rules. Otherwise, buy your own orange crush.

Today we have a related story: The People’s Republic of San Francisco has banned toys in McDonald’s Happy Meals. Their thought is that Happy Meals contain food that is bad for kids, so kids shouldn’t be enticed to bad food with a toy.

Following that logic, I propose we ban toys in San Francisco so children won’t be enticed to live there.

Seriously though (ok I was serious) my concern is the ever expanding view of government that they have the ever expanding power to decide what is good for us and control our behavior like a nanny.

Considering this one doesn’t apply to just food stamp recipients but to the rest of us as well, I don’t think there is any denying that liberals have us traveling down Hayek’s road to serfdom.

First they came for the Happy Meal, and I said nothing…

Yesterday Claire expressed what she called "post-election punditry hesitation" because though the midterm results marked historic victories for Republicans, a number of symbolic races were lost. In the ensuing discussion, members (especially those who live in the sinking ship of California) also expressed what seems like mild disappointment. Perhaps one explanation for the sentiments of disappointment is the high level of expectation with which many of us went into election day. Whilst reviewing the Ricochet midterm pool in order to determine who won, we discovered that members were by and large expecting much bigger results.

At the time of this posting, Real Clear Politics lists that Republicans have a net gain of +61 in the House, +6 in the Senate, and +7 in the governors' races. Contrast this with 59 entries in the Ricochet midterm pool:

• House: +61 (actual)
  • Minimum prediction: +52
  • Maximum prediction: +124
  • Median: +67
• Senate: +6 (actual)
  • Minimum: +6
  • Maximum: +12
  • Median: +9
• Governors: +7 (actual)
  • Minimum: +5
  • Maximum: +15
  • Median: +9

Ricochetians went into the election expecting a tsunami, and so were understandably a bit let down when the results only ended up amounting to a really big wave.

I just got back from speaking on Dünyanın Gündemi, a local news show. The name of the show means "World Agenda." Although I'm speaking in English, I'm being simultaneously translated into Turkish. So I'm afraid most of you will have to interpret my views about the midterms, the Tea Party, the future of NATO, Turkish-American relations and the Iranian missile threat through the juxtaposition of the images on the screen and my body language. It's surprisingly easy to do. It's also much funnier than I realized it would be as I was speaking.

If you listen closely, by the way, you will hear me talking about Ricochet.

The next two years do not bode well for the United States in relation to the rest of the world.

There have been lots of ominous developments abroad lately: the Chinese order for us to butt-out of their dispute with our ally Japan over contested territory; the Japanese dust-up with the Russians; the inexplicable twitter birthday wish sent to Ahmadinejad; the latest terrorist attempts originating from Yemen that perhaps have connections with earlier foiled attacks—along with the usual rumblings from North Korea, Syria, and Iran.

I would imagine that after 21 months a general impression, fairly or not, has been created that the U.S. is either unwilling or unable to offer its traditional allies the same level of support as in the past, as America seeks a more multilateral, UN-orientated approach to problems at precisely the time when regional autocracies seek adjustments and advantages in the perceived void. Now with Obama in a holding pattern after the midterm rebuke and considered wounded, I would imagine we will see a very different 2011, perhaps analogous to the annus horribilis of 1979, when the world sized up the therapeutic proclamations of Jimmy Carter between 1977-8, then and finally let loose—the Chinese invading Vietnam, the Soviets into Afghanistan, its surrogates expanding in Central America, the rise of radical Islam and fall of the shah, the taking of the American hostages in Iran, the boycott of the Olympics and on and on.

Just as Obama now seems petulant and miffed that voters did not appreciate his new statist agenda and impatiently and ignorantly pushed back, so too abroad Obama will become disappointed with the world that did not rally to his singular outreach, but instead interpreted his reset diplomacy as weakness to be exploited rather than as magnanimity to be appreciated. And looming behind all this is the specter of massive cuts in the U.S. budget and an anticipated curtailment of U.S defense posture abroad.

H/T member Erik Martinsen.

Update: I jumped the gun on this. This was a pre-election graphic for motivation, not an accurate post-election outcome graphic. Still fun to watch. Here's looking at 2012.

I'm pleased to introduce you to Ricochet's new interns: Adam Schwartzman and Joshua Riddle. Adam and Josh will be working behind the scenes to make Ricochet an even better place. Occasionally you'll hear from them from our main feed too.

A few words about each of them:

Josh Riddle is a junior at Dartmouth College and will graduate in 2012.

He is a government major with an emphasis on American politics and economics. He was a two year starting power-forward for the Dartmouth Varsity Basketball team, Associate and Web Editor for The Dartmouth Review, Founder of Young Conservatives, and co-founder of The Young Cons.

In his free time he is a student leader for the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and enjoys making music videos. You can see his latest video here.

Adam Schwartzman is a sophomore at Dartmouth College where he is double majoring in Philosophy and English with a minor in Chinese.

In addition to his academic pursuits, Adam is a member of the Dartmouth Rugby Football Club and an editor of The Dartmouth Review. He is allergic to cats.

(Graphic, as always, courtesy of EJHill)

Here's part of his analysis (via HotAir's quotes of the day):

I’m delighted that the country will not be plagued by Senators Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell, and probably Joe Miller in Alaska. In a wave election a candidate has to beat the voters over the head with incompetence to lose, but these folks managed.

Yeesh, "plagued" is a little harsh, and a descriptor perhaps better suited to the Harry Reids and Chris Coons' of the world, I'd say.

EJHill, the creative genius behind the above image, wants the Davids to start their own band.

Michele Bachmann, tea party dame, announced yesterday on her facebook page that she is running for a top leadership spot in the House:

I am pleased to announce that I am running for Chairman of the House Republican Conference! Constitutional Conservatives deserve a loud and clear voice in leadership!

Republicans will choose their leaders this month. So far, John Boehner is slated as the speaker-to-be, and Eric Cantor will in all likelihood take the number two position as the House majority leader.

But Bachmann will face some opposition in her bid. Patricia Murphy at Politics Daily notes that Bachmann's run may pit tea party conservatives against establishment Republicans:

Bachmann's announcement sets up the first leadership contest between a tea party favorite and a member of the more mainstream wing of the House Republicans, Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas. Although Hensarling is a well-known among his fellow GOP members, he lacks Bachmann's star-wattage and broad following from the newly powerful tea party movement.

So far, Cantor has endorsed Hensarling, as has Mike Pence, the outgoing conference chairman who stepped down, rumor goes, to pursue a gubernatorial bid in Indiana or a presidential bid. As for Boehner's stance on Bachmann's run: on election night he promised tea party activists, "I will never let you down." Will Boehner stay true to his word?

By endorsing Bachmann, the newly empowered GOP leaders now have a chance to send a strong signal of communion to tea partiers--what will Boehner do?

Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, speaking yesterday on CNBC, said that the tea partiers are "in the mainstream of where political thought is right now...[It’s to] Get the deficit under control, get the debt under control and pass on to our children a country that is prosperous and secure."

Endorsing Bachmann should be a no-brainer for Boehner.

Sometimes, very occasionally, if I use that description, it will result in the correct spelling of my name. But mostly it's hopeless. So I'm not entirely surprised to learn that Alaska's fate could be determined by a series of spelling mistakes. This was so predictable I even predicted it all the way from Istanbul. (Well, actually, I predicted that she'd just lose outright. But I noted the orthography problem.)

... in the event a voter misspells or abbreviates a candidate's name, such as "Lisa M." instead of "Lisa Murkowski," the Division of Elections would determine the voter's intent "on a case-by-case basis," according to division director Gail Fenumiai.

Case by case? Using what criteria? I sometimes reckon that bills addressed to Clair Berlinsky aren't addressed to me and therefore don't need to be paid, but it's rare for the bill collectors to see it the same way.

I have to imagine that someone named Gail Fenumiai might be prejudiced against people who just won't take the time to figure out how to spell a name correctly, even when it's important. But who knows. She may be a more fair-minded woman than me.

Yesterday, in a joint operation conducted by the Shin Bet and the Israeli Air Force, Israel killed 27-year-old terrorist Mohammed Namnam, identified by the Jerusalem Post as "a top operative with the Army of Islam, a radical Palestinian terror group affiliated with al-Qaida and involved in the 2006 abduction of Gilad Shalit." IDF spokeswoman Lt.-Col. Avital Leibovitz called Namnam, who had been an active terrorist for years, a "ticking bomb": intelligence indicated that he was preparing assaults on American and Israeli targets in the Sinai.

Two elements of this assassination are intriguing. One is the suggestion of consultation between Israel and the Americans about it ahead of time. The IDF spokeswoman, asked directly about this, said rather coyly that "[w]ithout getting specifically into more details, I can tell you there is very good cooperation between us and the Americans." There's also some interesting subtext to Hamas's unhesitating -- and as yet uncomplaining -- identification of the dead man: he was a senior aide to Mumtaz Dughmush, commander of the Army of Islam and top dog of the Dughmush clan, which has been fighting an undeclared war with Hamas pretty much non-stop since Hamas seized power in the Strip. The Dughmush clan is al-Qaida's local branch in Gaza and as such is a rival to Hamas. They kidnapped BBC correspondent Alan Johnston in 2007 as well as many other foreign nationals, and they regularly attack Palestinian targets, including Christians. They take no notice of Hamas directives regarding the timing and constitution of violent confrontation with Israel and act on their own initiative, come what may. The enmity between them has led to ample intra-Palestinian bloodletting.

(The Dughmush connection could very well explain, by the way, why Gilad Shalit is still locked in a cellar in Gaza, four years after his abduction, without the slightest movement forward towards his release: if Hamas isn't holding him, they can't free him. And the conditions of Shalit's captivity are so far beyond the pale -- not so much as a single Red Cross visit to confirm he's in one piece or even a letter from his own mother to comfort him in four years -- as to suggest that it is indeed the al-Qaida freakshow that unfortunately is holding him and not the relatively more mainstream Hamas freakshow, which has in fact battled the Dughmush clan in the past specifically to get them to release kidnap victims.)

I expect we'll hear less of the usual "Israel, with her insatiable lust for blood, has slaughtered another innocent Palestinian civilian" this time around (at least from within Gaza; we'll surely get it from the usual suspects in Europe). We will never know who Namnam's next target was to have been -- Israelis, Americans, or Europeans; Jews, Christians or Muslims. We can all breathe a little easier today, at least for the moment. And to Khaled Mashaal, leader of Hamas, on behalf of the IDF: You're welcome.

...actually, kind of hard to figure out.

We had two winners, really. Actually, to be totally fair, we had three. No one nailed it -- most of the Ricochet membership was a little too optimistic, which is a wonderful trait in life and love, but has certain drawbacks when it comes to making cold political calculations.

We're using the RCP numbers as our benchmark:

Senate +6, House +61, Governors +6

And our tie-breakers: Dingell, Boxer, and RCP has the Delaware spread at 16.6%.

So the final winners were Adam Freedman, Kenneth, and Pilgrim. The breakdown was:

Adam Freedman

1. The number of GOP House net pickups; +60

2. The number of GOP Senate net pickups. +6

3. Tiebreaker #1: The number of GOP governor pickups. +8

4. Tiebreaker #2: Steele or Dingell? Dingell (I'm a pessimist)

5. Tiebreaker #3: Boxer or Fiorina? Boxer (see above)

6. Tiebreaker #4: The percentage spread between O'Donnell and Coons: 12%

Kenneth

1. House + 63

2. Senate pickup will be 6.

3. Plus 7 Governors.

4. Dingell

5. Boxer

6. Coons over O'Donnell by 14

Pilgrim

1. House: 61

2.Senate: 8

3.Governors: 8

4.Dingell

5.Boxer

6. 3.9%

Adam, of course, is a contributor and is therefore prohibited by the complicated Ricochet by-laws to receive prizes or other things of value from any Ricochet-based wagering. He'll be getting a hearty handshake and a clap on the back.

Kenneth and Pilgrim will make an appearance on an upcoming Ricochet podcast. And they, of course, can lord it over the rest of us for the next, say, seven days.

It's the morning after and along with guests Jonah Goldberg and the WSJ's Bill McGurn, we tackle what it all means, what the future may hold, Paul Ryan's plan, Barney Frank's victory speech, the repudiation of Time Magazine, and of course, a gratuitous Star Trek reference.

Don your amor, here come the bullets:

• According to Wikipedia, Republicans picked up 32 seats in the 1928 election which translated to a 62% majority. In 1974, the GOP lost 48 seats, the largest single loss in U.S. history -- until now.
• Festivus is a holiday featured in "The Strike" episode of Seinfeld. The episode first aired on December 18, 1997. Since then many people have been inspired by the goodness of the Seinfeld holiday and they now celebrate Festivus as any other holiday.
• Congressman Paul Ryan's "Roadmap for America's Future" has it's own very slick website.
• Jonah mentioned William Voegeli's book Never Enough. Luckily, it was an Encounter Books Pick of The Week about a month ago. Buy it here.
• Ricochet contributor Haley Barbour gave press conference Wednesday alongside House Speaker-in-waiting John Boehner and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell as part of the midterm elections triumvirate victory team. Regrettably, he didn't mention us. Nonetheless, speculation about a possible Barbour presidential run has already begun.
• A profile of William F. Buckley from the The Miami News dated April 18th, 1967 in which he discusses his own rule, saying "I'd be the for the most right, viable candidate to win."
• Department store heir and DFL (Democratic-Farmer-Labor party) candidate Mark Dayton did indeed sell a painting by Renior (as well as another by Toulouse-Lautrec), that he inherited from his mother to help finance his campaign for governor of Minnesota. He claims he sold them for less than they were worth.
• Barney Frank's victory speech. Oy vey.
• One of CNN's ridiculous TweetGraphs. 140 characters aren't enough to describe how #silly they are.
• Back in September, Karl Rove expressed doubts about Christine O'Donnell's ability to win in Delaware. Ricochet contributor Mike Murphy expressed a similar sentiment. Both Rove and Murphy were roundly excoriated by Tea Party loyalists at the time. Turns out, Rove and Murphy were right.
• Almost exactly two years ago, Peter Beinart wrote in Time about the new liberal order and "why shifting attitudes about government could make Democrats the ruling party for a generation." Good call.
• Rob Long's giant brain enables him to host the podcast and read Dana Milbank's column in The Washington Post simultaneously.
• The Star Trek reference was entirely expected, but that doesn't mean we're able to provide a link. A little help, James?
• All of Jonah's recent posts on The Corner are here. We also recommend his Twitter feed.
• Jonah isn't the only one who would like Barack Obama to be more like Silent Cal.
• Are you a member of the Ricochet silent minority? Don't be shy, say hello!

Music in this week's episode:

• Let Yourself Go by James Brown
• Back In Black by AC/DC

The direct link to this week's episode is here (great for mobile devices!), but we'd really love it if you'd subscribe. Not an iTunes user? Please visit our Feedburner page for a number of other subscription options.

The Ricochet Podcast is sponsored by Encounter Books and their Broadside Series. This week's featured title is Obama Health Law: What It Says and How To Overturn It by Betsy McCaughey. Available for $5.99 at EncounterBooks.com.

Sorry to be out of touch, but I was traveling all day from California to the northern reaches of New Hampshire. On the front pages up here in the north country: The incumbent Democratic governor, John Lynch, won re-election yesterday, while a Republican, Kelly Ayotte, won the Senate seat of retiring Republican Judd Greg, so nothing much seemed to change.

But just open the newspaper to the inside pages, and this is what you'll learn:

New Hampshire has two congressional districts. Democrats held both. Yesterday, Republicans won both. The New Hampshire senate has 24 seats. Democrats held 14. Yesterday, Republicans won 19, reducing Democratic seats to a mere five. The New Hampshire house, an enormous body, has 400 seats. Democrats held 223. Yesterday, Republicans won at least 297--in some districts, the results are still too close to call--reducing Democratic seats to 103 at the most.

Democrats in the U.S. House, in other words, were wiped out, while Democratic seats in the New Hampshire senate were reduced by two-thirds and those in the New Hampshire house were cut in half.

Yes, yes, I know, Steven: humility. But humility, if I may, is for week. The rest of this week is for gloating.

Prior to yesterday, P.J. O'Rourke observed that November 2, 2010, would be less of an election and more of a restraining order. He was right, of course. Personally, it was exhilarating to evict Allan Boyd from the House, particularly after I warned him of the consequences of siding with Pelosi and against the Constitution. How did that saying go? Ah yes, ..."elections have consequences."

But our work isn't done. We now have a responsibility to act as probation officers, carefully watching those we have elected and reminding them that a fate such as Mr. Boyd's awaits them should they fail to uphold their oath to the Constitution. I don't expect the next Speaker and the next Congress to take this bloated behemoth of a government and turn it from Jabba The Hutt into Marie Osmond in two years. I do, however, expect them to stand up against the insanity from the administration by sending up measure after measure, peeling back layer after layer of over reaching and overarching bureaucracy meddling in our lives and businesses, and starve the beast by defunding it. It won't always be veto proof, but so what? Put the statists on record, and then defeat them with that record in 2012.

While we become probation officers to those we elected, we must also enforce the restraining order against the other two thirds of the Senate, and the White House. Make no mistake: If the entire Senate and the Presidency had been up for election yesterday, Republicans would have swept all of these coconuts out of office. That is not, in my opinion, because the public embraces the Republican party, but rather because they are so mortified and appalled at how much of their earnings and freedom the Democrats have swallowed up in such a relatively short time. Citizens have effectively dialed 911. Ours cannot be a tepid response.

To which point David Limbaugh has it exactly right. Moderating the pace of destruction is not an option. The parameters and rules of this restraining order were set in place 223 years ago, and plainly delineate the limits of federal power. Republicans have yet another chance to be the party of Constitutionalists. If they embrace this opportunity, they will reap electoral success. If they fail, we all fail. Republicans on the national stage will be further aided by robust Republican gains at the state level, where the spirit of the 10th Amendment remains vibrant.

As citizens, our responsibility did not end with the drop of a ballot. Not this time. The very best of us stands guard and stays vigilant on our behalf on the battlefield half a world away. We owe it to them, our children, and their children to remain vigilant here at home. The Constitution enshrines the concept of individual liberty. Its success, our success, ultimately depends on citizen-constitutionalists who, by guarding their freedom, also keep their government honest.

Oh, yes. I am so not making this up. It's back on.

Apparently, someone posted that infamous video of ousted opposition leader Deniz Baykal, who is the ousted, as opposed to the current opposition party leader because of the existence of the video in question. It features an impropriety, so to speak, and an intern, and an intimation that old man Baykal is losing his jihad--in the "personal, private moral struggle" sense of the word, which as we all know is the deep and authentic one. It was deep and authentic in this case, anyway. Actually, technically, she was a party deputy, not an intern, but the word "intern" sounds more sex-scandalicious. (Sorry, new Ricochet interns. If you prefer, we'll call you "party deputies" and reserve the word "intern" for those who engage in the kind of act that results in all of YouTube being banned in countries with kind of a neophyte grasp on the concept of freedom of expression.)

The hilariously tragic thing about this is that they're not even that good at banning it. They can't quite figure out how to do it. It's all kind of technically above the censors' pay grades. So right now, it's technically banned, or at least it was at the time that article was written, but I can still watch it. Maybe they'll get it figured out by tomorrow, or maybe the ban will be lifted again, or maybe they'll just accidentally ban some other massively useful site, like Google Maps--they did that before, apparently by accident, resulting in gridlock and traffic chaos when previously organized and disciplined Turkish drivers were forced to navigate by echolocation.

Yes, I am kidding about the last part, but only in the suggestion that Turkish drivers have ever been orderly and disciplined. I'm not kidding about them banning Google Maps by accident, and I don't think I'm kidding about their use of echolocation, either; it's as good a theory as any to explain what they think they're doing out there on those roads.

I agree with Steve Manacek that last night's victors should be humble, but I'm not sure for the same reasons. I view this as a protracted war that preceded us and will survive us. There will always be forces in the nation who want to move it ever further toward a socialist state (all the while denying it), so it's not as if last night concluded anything. It's just the beginning of another chapter in this ongoing struggle.

That said, we are not required to ignore or deny reality and learn from it. I detected way too much pessimism from the right last night when the mood should have been unbridled euphoria. I don't know if this was because of even higher expectations, a lukewarm media reaction (including Fox), the fact that certain particularly noxious characters retained their seats, or the hard cold reality that Obama is still president and the Dems still control the Senate despite last night's rout.

The reality is that last night's elections were nationalized and Obama's agenda was on every ballot -- to some extent -- and it was emphatically repudiated. That is cause for great triumph because it confirms a reawakening of the American people to systemic threats against their liberties and that Americans are still willing to jealousy fight for those liberties.

Even if last night had been a presidential election and we'd won back the presidency and both houses of Congress it would still be only the beginning in a new chapter. The fact is that Republicans have not been as effective in power as they've been out of power. And despite last night's turnaround, they're still not completely in power. We have a divided government. But that's a dramatic improvement from where we were the day before yesterday.

So I agree that we should be humble in the sense that in terms of governance, we haven't accomplished anything yet. So far we've just won the election albeit in historic terms.

But the true test is what happens next. Even though the GOP doesn't have full power back yet it surely will be held accountable as though it does. So it must be very smart in how it handles itself. Its best course of action is to adhere to conservative principles, which is clearly its mandate. It's mandate is not to implement Obama lite.

If those advocating humility are suggesting that we approach governance apologetically, propose half-measures, or immediately gravitate to the center for the sake of meeting Obama halfway, then I couldn't disagree more. He has been bankrupting the nation at warp speed. Slowing him down to Mach 2 for the sake of Kumbaya is contrary to the national interest. Obama's agenda has to be stopped in its tracks -- and reversed.

I know that's easier said than done, especially since we only have one of the two houses in one of the two political branches. But we have to try.

Understand this: Obama is not about to be deterred from his life goal of fundamentally transforming the nation. If you deluded yourself into thinking so after last night, surely you were disabused of that fantasy when witnessing Obama's press conference today, which Matthew Continetti admirably captured in his post today.

So by all means, let's be humble in realizing that we've only just begun to fight. But let's not be shy about pressing forward our agenda, which, by the way, is not a selfish or top-down agenda. Indeed to implement an agenda rooted in rolling back an oppressive government and unleashing the incomparable American entrepreneurial spirit is by definition humble in terms of governance, because it is reducing the role of government. It is command control, statist type politicians who tend toward hubris because they believe they know better than the people they were elected to serve, what is good for them. There is nothing humble in their governing philosophy and there was nothing humble -- substantively -- in Obama's speech today. Despite a few meaningless syllables paying lip service to the "shellacking," he made clear he still doesn't get it, because he still thinks WE don't get it. He knows nothing else than to pursue his Utopian schemes and that's what he intends to do. We can't be taken in by any phony overtures.

Let's be civil, let's be personally humble, but let's pursue a conservative agenda with vigor. In this case that happens to be humble because it is in accordance with the will of the overwhelming majority of the people.

PS -- Let me just say to those who might counter that this is just a midcourse correction and that people are just reacting to Obama's extremism by trimming his sails a little bit: you can't correct the urgent problems of this nation with mere sail trimming. We are hemorrhaging our children's money and we have to apply a tourniquet and then proceed to a transfusion. The statists have set in place a nationalized health care system that will destroy our health care and our liberties, let alone our treasury. They want to further burden us with cap and tax and full blown amnesty. Their odious financial bill makes our financial system less, not more vulnerable. They want to keep spending borrowed money -- in the trillions, and have no intention of reversing themselves on that. They have undermined our national security and are making it worse. This is gravely serious stuff, folks, and it doesn't serve us well to be too casual about it. More than a simple pendulum swing the other way is required. Let's proceed.

When you follow people of a different political persuasion - by which I mean people who cannot be persuaded they are wrong about anything - you get the cream of the conversation from the other side. Someone retweeted Naomi Klein:

What Obama refuses to get: There is no escape from furious enemies. The only protection is passionate and motivated friends.

Useful advice. Crystal-clear, too. Yes, that’s what the Administration should have relied on: friends. Maybe super-friends. Pity they just relied on pals, or good buds. Should America be attacked again by terrorists - who might qualify as “furious enemies” in the literal sense - we must send passionate friends to Yemen to protect the country.

Snark retweeted by someone, either because he approved or thought it tiresomely typical:

Since a robust economy demands a highly trained workforce, I’m assuming the cons are going to pour record corp $$$ into Higher Ed.

So much in so few characters. A robust economy indeed requires people with skills, but they’re usually not the sort of skills you get with Higher Ed. Quick! We’re opening up a factory next week. Get me as many English majors and sociologists as you can find! Also, lawyers! Higher Ed can impart a useful skill set, if one goes into science, engineering, or medicine. Liberal arts: pffft. (Says the English major.)

Second: corp money? Yes. Apparently it is the intention of the Republicans - I’m sorry, the teabagging Repukes, to use the technical term - to put CORP MONEY into the college system. Cons are just aslosh with CORP MONEY; bags are dropped off every morning along with the milk and newspapers. They’ll have to do something with it. But of course they won’t! They’ll hang on to the CORP MONEY so they can fund another election, where they will run on grinding the poor and the sick into a grey, nutritious slurry that will be fed to genetically modified pigs.

There was a winner last night whom no one on Ricochet has yet mentioned. I have in mind Hillary Rodham Clinton. In his press conference today, President Obama denied that the “shellacking” his party received had anything to do with his policies, but no one – apart, perhaps, from Chris Matthews, whose leg may still be tingling – believes anything of the sort: least of all, Mrs. Clinton and her canny, if wayward, consort.

As I have argued in more detail elsewhere, there are bound to be recriminations within the Democratic Party, and President Obama is apt to draw primary opposition in 2012 from both the left and the right in his party; Hillary can hardly afford to stay out, and I doubt that she will be genuinely reluctant to do so.

Here is what I predict. Sometime within the next few months, Barack Obama’s Secretary of State will find it necessary to resign her post over a matter of principle – one involving, say, the Obama administration’s policy with regard to Israel. A month or so later – under pressure, of course, from Democrats deeply worried about the future of her party, Mrs. Clinton will find herself "forced" to declare her candidacy for the Presidency of the United States.

What do you think? And who else will enter the fray?

I just stumbled upon this piece of news which describes how Californians in the 28th Senate District elected a dead state senator, the late Jenny Oropeza. To me the most startling part of the story is not that California voters elected a dead woman (she died just two weeks ago so it's plausible that some folks didn't even know about her passing), but that Democrats intentionally campaigned vigorously for her after her death. Tactically, I suppose it makes sense: the election of a dead person results in a subsequent special election, thereby thwarting victory for the Republican challenger. Nevertheless, it all seems rather perverse and unpalatable.

I put an item up a few weeks ago about possible changes in the Jewish vote in the 2010 election, suggesting that Jews will give Republicans more support in 2010 than they did in 2008. Both J Street and the Republican Jewish Coalition, normally antagonistic organizations, did exit polling of Jewish voters and found that Republicans got just over 30% of the Jewish votes in the 2010 election. Since Jews have given Republicans only about 24% on average in off year elections, this means that Republicans overperformed among Jewish voters yesterday. This is good news for the GOP. If the 2012 Republican presidential candidate were to win over 30% of the Jewish vote, that would probably coincide with a landslide victory for the GOP.

It seems to me the real lesson out of yesterday’s mixed-bag of election results is the need for a lot more HUMILITY – from everyone. From Congressional Democrats, obviously – they took one of the worst shellackings in two generations, even if a few of their at-risk senators managed to avoid the shrapnel. And no, it wasn’t just because of “the economy.” An awful lot of it was due to the “Cornhusker kickback” and the “Louisiana purchase” and “you have to pass it to see what’s in it” and “we don’t need no stinkin’ budget.” From President Obama, certainly. When hardly any Democrat running for office will even mention your signature health care reform (and most of those who do, do so critically), and four out of your five biggest “accomplishments” remain decidedly and persistently unpopular with the voting public – yes, you might have had something to do with the shellacking.

But humility is equally in order from the Republican establishment, too. They may have emerged as the most obvious “winners,” but this was hardly their victory alone. Without the energy and enthusiasm engendered by grass-roots forces they had little to do with unleashing and only slowly embraced, I doubt they would have emerged even with a majority in the House, never mind an historic gain. And they need to remember that their party remains unpopular – more people voted against the other guys than for them. And finally, from the Tea Parties – yes, they emerged from nowhere to become a force to be reckoned with, and yes, they did score some impressive wins. But they also suffered some high-profile defeats – they don’t have any Magic Pixie Dust – and they need to remember that however many enthusiastic Tea Partiers there are out there, this is not yet a “Tea Party” nation, or even close to it.

Was this announced while I was asleep, maybe?

If you watched Sesame Street in the 70s, and you especially liked the annoying-but-lovable Ernie being a perpetual nudge to the irritable-but-ultimately-forgiving Bert, then you’ll appreciate this clip.

There are several more like it on YouTube. Here’s another that I loved.

I wasted about 30 minutes today searching for the best one to select for this post. Genuinely funny. Very real, or, in politico-speak, “relatable.” And, believe it or not, there’s always a good life lesson or two snuck in there.

Frankly, I think the writing’s brilliant, but Rob and Denise are better judges of that. Fact is, though, I remember my mom laughing over my shoulder at episodes when she occasionally ventured out from the kitchen when I was 5 or 6.

Fast forward to the new millennium. Take a look at Bert and Ernie today. This is Sesame Street’s “Bert and Ernie’s Great Adventures” series with the duo. You’ll notice a few changes.

My kids watch about 30 minutes of Sesame Street a day while my husband gets ready for work and I clean up the oatmeal and pack lunches. Bert and Ernie are totally emasculated and completely stripped of all personality. B.O.R.I.N.G. The whole show, except for the odd celebrity clip (such these with Ricky Gervais, Adam Sandler, and Feist), is a dud, in my opinion. Sanitized. Politically correct. Self-consciously inoffensive. No one gets angry. No one raises their voice. Everyone squeaks or smiles or offers positive reinforcement. It teaches (preaches?) about animal habitats and recycling and world music. Boo.

Are Bert and Ernie gay? Do the writers intend for them to be interpreted that way? That’s a question that’s been around for a while, granted. And Fox News stirred up the controversy again with this recent article. (h/t Ricochet Headlines page)

I think you can get some hints from the two clips above. Bert’s voice tone has changed. Check out Bert’s new mannerisms and gestures—more Oscar Wilde than Oscar the Grouch. Am I making that up?

To add to the fun, there’s an apparent inside joke. In Season 39 (2008) the “Bert and Ernie’s Great Adventures” theme song included a mumbly (and totally inappropriate) little phrase that Bert says right after the bed passes through clouds that turn into horses in the sky. Listen and tell me what you think he says?

Well, whatever you think it is, Sesame Street said it was the harmless nonsense word that I’m sure we’ve all heard of -- “kicky” -- but they changed the word, nevertheless, by season 40 (2009). What does that tell you?

Here are the words to the song:

Every night when I lie in bed, (Oh no)

I see pictures dancing in my head. (Picture sleep!)
Buddy Bert, buckle up and we'll fly awaaaay!

We're adventuring!
Every time the bed starts tapping
Something special’s gonna happen
(This is kinda kicky / kinky ! - Season 39)
(This is kinda catchy! - Season 40)
My favorite kind of traveling.

We’re adventuring!
Come along with Bert and Ernie
We're going to take a little journey
Bert and Ernie’s Great Adventures!

Adventures. I’ll say.