Our Views: GOP must bear burden

In the spirit of compromise we hope furthered by the clarity of the election returns, the two parties should agree on a budget deal, required by forthcoming deadlines on both the tax and spending fronts.

The principal compromises have to come from the GOP.

Other than that, we are simply denying the reality of the recent returns.

In the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, a fever-swamp of voodoo economics for many years, the president is said to be the one who must fashion a compromise that House Republicans will accept.

While the House has a GOP majority, it lost some seats on Tuesday, and would probably have lost more had district lines not been redrawn in many states in 2011 to favor GOP candidates. The GOP lost big in the Senate races, and of course the presidency, the race that many conservatives thought would be won by Republican nominee Mitt Romney.

And now it is the president who must find a way to satisfy recalcitrant Republicans?

The latest suggestion by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, is for a two-stage process of keeping in place the Bush-era tax cuts prized by Republicans and “laying groundwork” — or some such formulation — for a bigger bargain later.

We think that’s a recipe for dragging out conflict and confrontation, instead of getting to the point. Perhaps all the details can be worked out early next year, but the main outlines of the agreement should be made now, and made to last.

The economy needs stability, and if the election returns meant anything, it was that the nation endorsed President Barack Obama’s vision more than Romney’s on taxes. A budget deal inevitably will reflect that fact.

We need a budget deal that will last more than the next few weeks. Setting up another political battle for February, which is what Boehner is suggesting, is economically counterproductive.

Further, Boehner has to carry the Republican caucus to compromise. It takes two to compromise, certainly, but ultimately the House GOP leadership has to be responsible for its members.

We hope that Boehner will work in good faith with Obama on a long-term plan for deficit reduction, and that Louisiana’s Republican members of Congress will support the speaker in passing a durable compromise.

That doesn’t mean Obama runs roughshod, but if there were ever a political and economic circumstance that cried out for decisive action, this is it.


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (74)


1) Comment by InPVille - 15/11/2012

@T_S: Unlike the world of Physics. In human belief systems, perception is reality. So if you think it is so, it is so. Even if it isn't. Are you having fun yet?

2) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 15/11/2012

Thanks for proving how willfully dishonest you are willing to be to defend your ideology. . I never said it offended me (or anyone for that matter). The term has been used (and continues to be used) as a pejorative. You know it. Your previous post proves you know it. Pathetic

3) Comment by InPVille - 15/11/2012

@T_S: Let me think about what the proper usage "depending" would be. Democrats are members of the Democratic party. or Democratics are members of the Democrat party. Perhaps Leftist would work for both. I"ll have to think about it. . . Actually I don't know it was meant as an insult. But then, isn't it almost impossible not to offend someone these days. Take the word "binders" for example. There is no way a dictionary of what is and what isn't politically correct "for you people"(there is another one) can be kept updated unless a daily update service was provided. Perhaps you would be willing to take on the task.

4) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 15/11/2012

You know it's meant as an insult; you even hinted at it when you said: "I see no reason why Democrats should be the only people in this country who can redefine the meaning of words and their usage. Democrats routinely refer to Republicans with far worse level insults” So, by all means, keep using it. Just quit beating around the bush about why… and accept being called a hypocrite for using it…

5) Comment by InPVille - 15/11/2012

@Tea_Slayer: If it is acceptable practice to say "a Republican" and "the Republican Party", then I can see no logical reason why to say "a Democrat" and "the Democrat Party" should not be equally acceptable. In all likelihood the reason it is not, is that Democrats are prepared to go miles out of their way to find things to be upset about in their lives of discontent. I am beginning to rethink discontinuing the usage, if is so conversation provoking.

6) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 14/11/2012

"a sly insult. . . Typical!" says the guy who uses the term "Democrat Party"

7) Comment by Mildred Citizen - 14/11/2012

Cutting $850 billion dollars from each year, not over tne years.

8) Comment by Mildred Citizen - 14/11/2012

My grandkids owe enough, already. No increase on the debt ceiling. Let the president raise taxes as much as he has the courage to do. The Republicans need to quit arguing over the tax rate. Tell the president he can raise taxes as much as he wants, as long as he cuts present day spending enough to balance the budget. He is talking about raising taxes $150 billion each year. Let him have it - IF he agrees to cut spending $850 billion. The House of Representative should just tell him he can have all the tax increases he wants, just deliver them a plan to cut spending by $850 billion.

9) Comment by InPVille - 14/11/2012

@Tea_Slayer: I get it now. Since DMJ didn't have anything substantive to add, he tried to provide a sly insult. . . Typical!

10) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 14/11/2012

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —President George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

11) Comment by InPVille - 14/11/2012

@DMJ: There might be usage variations. I've never seen the quote as you listed it. About five minutes of looking at the phrase using my internet search engine didn't show anything other than what I wrote. Do you have a reference I could check? There might be usage variations.

12) Comment by DMJ - 14/11/2012

I think the correct quote is: Fool me once...shame on me. Fool me twice...can't get fooled again.

13) Comment by nimby? - 13/11/2012

"I have seen the enemy , and he iz us' , Pogo .

14) Comment by InPVille - 13/11/2012

In the past, based on the promise of future spending cuts, increased taxes have been agreed upon. Then no spending cuts were agreed to. It is hard to obtain agreement to even a reduction in the rate of spending increase. "Fool me once, shame of you." Given past history, agreeing to tax increases first or without spending cuts being agreed to at the same time, is too reminiscent of "Fool me twice, shame on me". The spending cuts are otherwise unlikely to happen.

15) Comment by ScotB - 13/11/2012

The president has not ever proposed real cuts. Only "future cuts". If we raise rates to the level Obama wants, it will fund the government 8 days. We need real cuts. If Obama will give the Republicans 100 days of cuts that take effect at the same time as the tax increases(what it will take to balance the budget), I am sure they will give him 8 days of revenue.

16) Comment by gvm - 13/11/2012

If members of the GOP are sincere they would avail themselves of the results of a study performed by the CBO that showed only one scenario that would bring the nation's books back into the black. That's a combination of increased revenues and reduced spending. The president has indicated he is willing to adopt such a proposal but the GOP has fought tooth and nail against it. That is why their constant protestations about the deficit ring hollow.

17) Comment by InPVille - 13/11/2012

If the projections I have seen for the national debt in the year 2016 are correct, we will all be bearing the burden of a 20 trillion dollar national debt. Time will tell home many people actually winning anything in the long run. The larger the debt, the larger the interest payments, and the less tax revenue available for necessary programs. Then there are the unfunded mandates that money must be found to cover. These problems would exist and will have to be dealt with no matter who won the election. The burden is on every member of both houses of Congress and the White House to solve the puzzle.

18) Comment by nimby? - 13/11/2012

higher costs , lower profits , health care deception , increase in taxes ... nah , I'm not sore .

19) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 13/11/2012

nimby, see below for posters who need to "get over it..." but thanks for the input, professor. The simple fact that you even responded to a comment not directed towards you lends me to believe that you are a bit sore as well…

20) Comment by nimby? - 13/11/2012

last time I checked 51 percent isn't that much more than 49 percent . but hey , you won , get over it .....

21) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 13/11/2012

Last time I checked, 332 is much greater than 206, i.e. a trouncing

22) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 13/11/2012

InPVille, Thank YOU for taking the bait...as DMJ stated: "So?"

23) Comment by DMJ - 13/11/2012

"President Obama is also the first U.S. President of the last four two term Presidents who received fewer Electoral College votes for his second term than for his first term." So?

24) Comment by InPVille - 13/11/2012

@Tea_Slayer: "your statistics concerning popular vote are irrelevant. The last time I checked, we used this thing called the Electoral College and Obama trounced Romney." -[**]- Thank you for biting. I also have that one covered. Take a look at the last four presidential elections Electoral College margins for races in which a president won his reelection bid. -[**]- 1980 Reagan - 489, Carter 49 -[**]- 1984 - Reagan 525, Mondale 13 -[****]- 1992 - Clinton 370, Bush 168 -[**]- 1996 - Clinton 379, Dole 159 -[****]- 2000 - Bush, Jr. 271, Gore 266 -[**]- 2004 Bush, Jr. 286, Kerry 251 -[****]- 2008 Obama 365, McCain 173 -[**]- 2012 Obama 332, Romney 206 - - - President Obama is also the first U.S. President of the last four two term Presidents who received fewer Electoral College votes for his second term than for his first term. Sweeping mandates are not what they used to be here either. When it comes to crushing and embarrassing defeats, the answer is much the same. Mondale also wins the race to the bottom hands down over Carter, Bush Sr., Dole, Kerry, McCain, or Romney using Electoral College numbers as the measure.

25) Comment by nimby? - 13/11/2012

one party is in denial . there will be more words "misunderstood" , leading to further explanations . these gaffes will be ignored or excused ; nothing is learned .

26) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 13/11/2012

InPVille: your statistics concerning popular vote are irrelevant. The last time I checked, we used this thing called the Electoral College and Obama trounced Romney.

27) Comment by agagent - 13/11/2012

I get it deficits don’t matter because Barack Obama has had the 4 largest deficits on record: $1.4 trillion, $1.3 trillion, $1.3 trillion, and $1.1 trillion.

28) Comment by agagent - 13/11/2012

We have had a huge increase in entitlement spending under Obama. Deficits matter because businesses are aware that increased taxes usually follow the increased spending. The huge Obama deficits and the anticipation of additional Obama regulations have created the fear and uncertainty we see in American businesses today.

29) Comment by agagent - 13/11/2012

Obama was the most partisan Senator in Congress, and he has continued it as President. When Obama was first elected he told the Republicans they could come along for the ride but they had to sit at the back of the bus. That has always been Obama’s poisiton on bipartisanship. The sequestration idea came from the Obama administration and sent to Congress through Harry Reid’s office.

30) Comment by Loki - 13/11/2012

Republicans should have played bipartisan a long time ago instead of slapping Obama's hand away repeatedly. People call for working together now, but I suggest Obama make them crawl at this point. No negotiating with hostage takers this time. They designed the sequestration, let them hear the squeals of their defense contractor lobbyists if they won't play ball.

31) Comment by Loki - 12/11/2012

The deficit is of little concern at this point. If people were paying you to hold and invest their money, would you be too worried about hiring your neighbor to help you fix the roof on your money shed?

32) Comment by InPVille - 12/11/2012

Hey Scrooge: I cited verifiable statistics and not fantasy. What the last 40 years has shown me is that the middle(moderates) are not all that happy with either end of the political spectrum. They periodically switch their support from one party to the other when they get tired of the respective ***** of the one in power. or when one side goes farther than the middle is willing to tolerate. That is the difference between the U.S. and the Middle East. In the Middle East there is one extreme and the moderates. Thus there is nothing for the moderates to moderate between. Speaking of fondling your gun. Remember to wash your hands after you finish playing with yours.

33) Comment by Scrooge - 12/11/2012

No compromise sure doesn't work with my relations with my family, my spouse (especially my spouse), my church, my job, etc. etc., etc. I imagine that is the case with billions of other human beings as well. Obviously, there is a disconnect, that is why InPVille, agagent, The_Host ( I presume there is intelligence in there somewhere, he figured out the internet thingy) , are so adamantly clinging to a fantasy, when the facts remain. Let the heathen rage, they are really only doing themselves harm. Besides, if a rigidly partisan politics were so effective, the results of the 2010 elections would have sealed Obama's fate. Instead, they sealed Romney's. In 4 or 8 or 2 years, despite the frothing at the mouth deniers of reality, we will still be America, where you can froth at the mouth while fondling your gun (constitutionally, even) . Probably then a Republican will be elected but 4- 8 years after that a Democrat will take the reins and so on because of the deniers of reality who believe that fantasy should be greater than reality and who cannot accept the fact that humans are imperfect and no human edifice will stand the test of time. Sorry to break it to you. Keep frothing, its amusing when one has the time.

34) Comment by gvm - 12/11/2012

@Atilla: I wonder what it feels like to live in a constant state of denial? You stated: "One of the glaring differences in voters is that a white voter will vote for any candidate who holds the same political views as he, regardless of race." Guess what? Black voters do the same! Why can't you see that? If Barack Obama had been the GOP nominee running on their dubious platform he would have received little, if any, of the Black vote. Conversely, if Romney had been the Democratic candidate running on their platform he would have experienced a groundswell of support from the Black community I suspect. I think that it is quite probable many white voters, particularly those in red states, didn't vote for President Obama precisely because he's black. I find such a stance extremely stupid given that many of them are the principal beneficiaries of the "freebies" they publicly disparage. They are so consumed by the color of the man's skin that they are willing to shoot themselves in the foot time and time again. As far as Romney is concerned they are part of the lost 47% and he only pretended to recognize them later so that he might get their votes. I sincerely hope that you guys eventually will pull your heads out whatever orifice they happen to be lodged in and wake up - for your own well being.

35) Comment by nimby? - 12/11/2012

DMJ , break it down to counties . urban is blue , rural is red , in every state , just sayin ...

36) Comment by The_Host - 12/11/2012

If you think Liberals are going to control spending and balance the budget you must be smoking crack. You can not point to a single time when this was ever the case under Democrats. We are BROKE. Why is this so hard for you all to understand. When they say they could confiscate all the money from the rich and still be broke a few months later they aren't lying. That is how much money we spend in this country a year on government. What happened to the housing market when people were allowed to get loans they could not repay on houses they could not afford? The whole thing crashed. Next time it won't just be housing it will be the entire nation. Unless you can make spenidng more money to get you out of debt work, not that anyone in the history of man has ever made that plan work. But I am sure THIS TIME with the geniuses we now have that will all change right? LOL

37) Comment by InPVille - 12/11/2012

Let us look at the last four presidential elections percentage margins for races in which a president won his reelection bid. -[**]- 1980 Reagan - 50.75%, Carter 41.01% -[**]- 1984 - Reagan 58.77%, Mondale 40.56 -[****]- 1992 Clinton 43.01%, Bush 37.45% -[**]- 1996 - Clinton 49.23%, Dole 40.72 -[****]- 2000 - Bush, Jr. 47.87%, Gore 48.38 -[**]- 2004 Bush, Jr. 50.73%, Kerry 48.27% -[****]- 2008 Obama 52.87%, McCain 45.60% -[**]- 2012 Obama 50.53%, Romney 47.85% - - - President Obama is the first U.S. President of the last four two term Presidents who received fewer votes for his second term as a percentage than for his first term. Apparently sweeping mandates are not what they used to be. When it comes to crushing and embarrassing defeats, there is no contest. Mondale wins the race hands down over Carter, Bush Sr., Dole, Kerry, McCain, or Romney with double the percentage(or greater) difference of any of the latter.

38) Comment by DMJ - 12/11/2012

Let's hope Boehner has a little more success this time around getting Ryan and Cantor on board with the compromise they sabatoged last year.

39) Comment by Whatchange - 12/11/2012

Wow, now "The Advocate" is printing fear, it sure didn't take long for them to jump on the band wagon. Now, in my limited mind of thinking, it seams it falls on both parties to make change, not just one. The key word to the whole thing here is "Compromise". If I remember correctly neither party was Compromising.

40) Comment by HerbF - 12/11/2012

The speaker and the President actually reached a compromise last year, but the Speaker couldn't sell it to his members. The uber conservative "Tea Party" members are not apparently interested in compromise.

41) Comment by Sandy - 12/11/2012

The house GOP members are responsible to their constituents, not to John Boehner. Compromising the principals they campaigned on just because Boehner wants to make a deal is a good way for them to get unelected.

42) Comment by InPVille - 12/11/2012

@Tea_Slayer: Whatever! I see no reason why Democrats should be the only people in this country who can redefine the meaning of words and their usage. Democrats routinely refer to Republicans with far worse level insults. . . Nazi, trying to starve children, want to return to Jim Crow, put you back on the plantation. They can dish is it out but want to be excused from taking it.

43) Comment by Attila - 12/11/2012

@gvm: Your attempt to compare the white voter who is obviously in the minute minority of Republicans to the people who vote based purely on racial lines is at best obtuse. One of the glaring differences in voters is that a white voter will vote for any candidate who holds the same political views as he, regardless of race. Black voters have demonstrated that, given a choice between a black or white candidate, they will vote for the black 95% of the time. Don't believe that? Check out the votes by precinct in the Baton Rouge mayoral election. Holden could not have won without a sizable white vote....but he got it....for the third time.

44) Comment by DMJ - 12/11/2012

Nimby, cities are spread out all over the nation as well. Also, last I checked, red states have cities too. And just because someone considers themselves more self-sufficient, doesn't mean they actually are, as I'm sure you know. And why don't we stop trying to divide America into percentage blocks already? 47% don't pay taxes....51% live in the cities... Enough already.

45) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 12/11/2012

InPVille, you and I both know that it is incorrect to call the Democratic Party, the "Democrat party". It is a cheap party trick that negates any rational argument that follows its use. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet) ---http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/07/060807ta_talk_hertzberg

46) Comment by nimby? - 12/11/2012

the differences in the country are more clearly defined urban and rural . liberals would have us believe america is to be defined by the 51 percent living in congestion in a few states not the 49 percent spread out over the vast majority of the nation . would be interesting to see which considers themselves more self sufficient ....

47) Comment by bourbon-soda - 12/11/2012

Once the pork barrel is in place, it is impossible to get elected without bringing home some of the bacon.

48) Comment by InPVille - 11/11/2012

@gvm: As far as the Republican's in Congress, especially as seen during the Bush Administration, I can't disagree with your estimation as to the loose fiscal policy. Tax rates aren't really high enough to make tax cuts an economic starter. But it is also true that "Trickle Down Government" is a sham. At the end of four years I expect to see the national debt greater and continuing chronic unemployment. The Green Energy initiatives the administration is determined to continue and expand will increase energy costs which isn't going to help the economy or employment. Green Energy production will probably one day become as inexpensive as traditional energy sources are today. But that day is sometime in the unpredictable future. There will be no discernible effect on the climate from any of this. U.S. CO2 production is somewhat down. But anything we cut in the future is going to be replaced, and then some, by increasing production by developing nations. I would not be surprised if the nation's credit rating isn't again lowered again within the next four years.

49) Comment by gvm - 11/11/2012

@InPVille: Based on your (or De Tocqueville's) reasoning there is not much that separate the two parties then. Both have been responsible for loose fiscal policy and both have discovered that they "can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury." The only difference I can see is whether or not one views the distribution as upward or downward. I suppose tax cuts for the "job creators" really is a sham.

50) Comment by InPVille - 11/11/2012

@Tea _Slayer: Democrat is the singular of Democrats just as Republican is the singular of Republicans. Anyway the current party thinking isn't much in keeping with the original view point of the relationship of the government and the governed. . . more like the ends justify the means. -[**]- @gvm: No! It is pretty much always the cookies. "“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.” Alexis de Tocqueville - - - The more things change, the more they remain the same. Culture changes over the decades. But human nature hasn't changed.

51) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 11/11/2012

InPville, you are usually an intelligent poster. Why would you resort to the childish tactic of referring to the Democratic party as the "Democrat Party"? You shouldn't need to pander to the angry, irrational fringe posters...

52) Comment by bourbon-soda - 11/11/2012

I only brought up Kipling wondering whether the headline writer was a conservative mole with a sense of humor.

53) Comment by gvm - 11/11/2012

I suspect at least a few of those voters who voted Democrat this time around did so because they simply couldn't stomach the Republican alternative. No offer of cookies, cakes or candy was needed to bring about that result.

54) Comment by InPVille - 11/11/2012

Before the 2012 elections the Democrat party held the majority in the Senate and held the White House. The Republican party held the House of Representatives. After the 2012 elections the balance of the equation is unchanged. The Democrats will probably succeed in increasing taxes. However, it is doubtful Democrats will actually produce any cuts in federal spending(There is no reason for anyone to vote for a Democrat without the promised benefit bribes of cookies, cake, and candy.) The latter is also necessary if the nation's fiscal house is to be brought into order. Even decreases in the rate of spending increases is doubtful.

55) Comment by prbeav - 11/11/2012

I read the comments to learn, after reading an excellent editorial and feel much gratitude to @Bourbon-soda for introducing me to Kipling's poem.>>>>After one reading, I wish the title was "The Indoctrinated Man's Burden," with the refrain, "Take up the indoctrinated man's burden." My impression comes from Kipling's concluding thought: "Comes now, to search your manhood Through all the thankless years, Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom, The judgment of your peers.">>>>>When I was indoctrinated in Christianity, I was anxious to "save souls." As a young man, when the opportunities came and went, I felt the other party was just stubborn or not among the elect. Decades later, I began to consider the other party, and began to see their satisfaction with their religion and appreciate the peace and goodwill they offered me. I stopped trying to "save" others and feel my life improved.>>>>I wish Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, majority and minorities, rich and poor, would begin to consider themselves as We the People of the United States and work together to fulfill the seven goals stated in the preamble to the US Constitution.>>>>My paraphrase follows: The citizens who want integrity, justice, peacefulness, defense, prosperity, liberty, and continuity govern this nation. So far, such civic duty seems widely neglected or unknown.

56) Comment by gvm - 11/11/2012

@Attila: You state: "This woman is indicative of the average Obama voter. The Democrat strategy was no different than it has been. It is to scare those less educated, less informed, and gullible members of society. This woman did not even know the name of Obama's opponent; referring to him as the 'other guy'." This is exactly why you so-called conservatives lost the race. And you will continue to marginalize the party by making these erroneous observations. I saw a picture of a guy at a Romney event with a T-shirt that said, in part: "Put white back in the White House." I ask you: is he a typical Romney voter?

57) Comment by gvm - 11/11/2012

@Bourbon-soda: The thing is, I haven't seen Democrats or Liberals: feverishly denying the theory of evolution, climate change, hopelessly clinging to the discredited notion that tax cuts alone will spur the economy, etc., etc. It was in this vein that I quoted Mencken.

58) Comment by Attila - 11/11/2012

In Saturday's opinion page there were several people who were asked what they thought of the election results. One black woman stated that "I think it is good he won again, because the other person was going to take away welfare and food stamps and Social Security." This woman is indicative of the average Obama voter. The Democrat strategy was no different than it has been. It is to scare those less educated, less informed, and gullible members of society. This woman did not even know the name of Obama's opponent; referring to him as the "other guy". All she knew was that if she voted for Obama she was going to keep her food stamps, welfare, SS, and probably her "free" cell phone. She is the typical Democrat voter. Only someone who is poorly educated, informed, and with little common sense would believe that Romney wanted to do the things she feared. God help this country. We are going to need it worse than ever.

59) Comment by bourbon-soda - 11/11/2012

@gvm - if you don't see those characteristics in liberals or Democrats, you may need to take some windex to your mirror.

60) Comment by ScotB - 11/11/2012

Only the House of Reps can raise the debt ceiling. I would advise them to tell the Obama administration to bring us a plan for a balanced budget. Let Obama's team decide how much it wants to raise taxes. Let them determine the spending cuts. The House should say we will support whatever you want to do, Mr. President. Just bring us a balanced budget with real. present day cuts (not hypothetical cuts someday in the future) along with the real tax increases. No increase in the debt ceiling, Mr. President.

61) Comment by gvm - 11/11/2012

@Bourbon-soda: Mencken also described the American outlook of the time as follows: "All the characteristics of senescence are in it: a great distrust of ideas, an habitual timorousness, a harsh fidelity to a few fixed beliefs, a touch of mysticism." Personally, I don't find this to be true of all Americans today, but it certainly seems to paint a pretty accurate picture of the current TP/GOP mob.

62) Comment by bourbon-soda - 11/11/2012

The headline is funny. Take a look at http://www.online- literature.com/kipling/922/ though a more contemporary version of the burden is taxpayers bearing the burden for tax takers.

63) Comment by gvm - 11/11/2012

Sour grapes anyone? The GOP leaning posters here are looking at their defeat on Tuesday inappropriately I believe. Of course when you look at the results in purely numerical terms one might argue that it was fairly close. However, when you look at GOP performance in all but one of the swing states, it is evident even to the most ardent GOP supporter that they suffered a significant and humiliating loss. This is important to note because neither side should get credit for the states they already had locked up. The testament as to who the better candidate was is clearly illustrated by swing state performance. Looking through that prism, the TP/GOP got its clock cleaned in every aspect of the campaign. It should be obvious that a majority of Americans resolutely rejected an outdated platform based on xenophobia, religious intolerance, sexism, racism and utter stupidity. You guys need to accept defeat graciously and begin to re-package your image. See you in 2014!

64) Comment by Whatnow - 11/11/2012

HA HA, you lost? That was very petty and sounded like a second grader, or shall I say your partisan Obama. All it will do is stir anger to try harder next time. It takes two to tango, and we all know how well Obama's last budget was received. He doesn't know economics as we found out. Not one vote. Not one. People didn't vote for his economics. They voted with their social agendas. And people don't care where their freebies come from, they just want them no matter where they come from. I have always known that The Advocate was biased and this just shows how much. I will never believe them again on facts, either.

65) Comment by DMJ - 11/11/2012

It was funny, yet also sad, to watch Fox News right after they called the election for Obama. Sure, there was the really embarrassing Rove thing too, which was painful to watch. Fox talking heads were already talking about what the President might have learned from "barely" winning an election and what he'll need to do differently in the future (as if he's lost) Of course, he has no mandate whatsoever, they say. And why would House Republicans do anything differently when they still hold the House? Conservative media types are already cheering on Republicans to continue to obstruct Obama at all costs. I see some in the comment section have already gobbled up the talking points and are regurgitating them in a frenzy. Compromise is anathema to the GOP. They lose the election so. If they were adults, they'd realize the error of their ways and actually try to work together. But...they're petulant children who think the reason they lost is because they weren't conservative enough. The degree of hard-headedness is actually kind of impressive in weird way. I'll say this for Republicans- they have terrible, outdated and disproven ideas, but they definitely do not take defeat lying down. They'd call it persistence; I'd call it intransigence.

66) Comment by jdk944 - 11/11/2012

Well I see The Advocate got its "marching" orders or talking points, to share this week from the Democrat National Committee and the White House!! This administration, eeks out a win last Tuesday and Obama called it a "majority". Wow, more nonsense!! Obama's definition of compromise is that he proposes something and everyone THEN needs to agree with it. I say SHUT IT DOWN!! No compromise. What part of THE DEBT don't you understand Advocate!!

67) Comment by InPVille - 11/11/2012

@lovemykids: Of course you are being petty! The Democrat Party can no more expect Republicans to "Just accept it and compromise" than the the Republican Party could expect the Democrats to "Just accept it and compromise" after the 2000 elections. That is not the nature of the struggle when two diametrically opposed belief systems come together. . . not that the Republicans actually holding power are all that different from the Democrats. But those they have to go for votes are. In the end the marker will in all likelihood be advanced further in the direction the Democrats wish it to go. We will see whether the national debt ever comes under control and unemployment numbers improve.

68) Comment by lovemykids - 11/11/2012

Not to be petty, but HA HA YOU LOST!!!! Just accept it and compromise.

69) Comment by Cousin Dave - 11/11/2012

You liberal creeps in the media just don't get it. The future of our country is at stake, and we Republicans are trying to save it. Do you really think we are going to give up because we are ounumbered 50.1 % to 49.9%?

70) Comment by 8point6 - 11/11/2012

"Our Views: GOP must bear burden" NO! democrats must bear burden. democrats/president must cross the aisle and help GOP pass a new "contract with America". http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/newt-gingrichs-new- contract-with-america/

71) Comment by bourbon-soda - 11/11/2012

Which is the harder reality, the "carnival of Buncombe" (as H.L. Mencken called it) of a national election, or compound interest?

72) Comment by agagent - 11/11/2012

Obama got some 10 million less votes than in 2008, but enough Obama voters voted because they were told that the economy was peachy keen, and the world loved us because of Obama. Some voted for Obama because they wanted their Obamaphones and other free stuff. The committed liberals agree with Obama’s class warfare rhetoric. Enough voters did not voted because they could not vote for a moderate like Romney.

73) Comment by agagent - 11/11/2012

In the last debt ceiling debate Republicans managed to nudged the Obama deficits from about $1.2 trillion to about $1 trillion a year. We needed the deficit to be much lower to avoid a credit down grade, and Obama still piled up record debt. By calling for more taxes on the "rich" Obama will slow the estimated the annual growth from a very anemic 1.5% to a very dismal 1.25%, according to the CBO. The Obama economy is barely creeping along, partly because of the $1 trillion Obamacare taxes. The tax increases on the rich will hurt the economy but Obama will do it because of his view of social justice. The Advocate is advocating that Republicans must compromise when they should be worried if businesses will still be able to afford advertising in their newspaper when the tax increases kick in.

74) Comment by ScotB - 11/11/2012

I say let the Dems raise taxes as much as they dare. Cut spending as little as they want, but promise not to raise the debt ceiling. Balance the budget.