Some people, mostly constitutional lawyers, have already figured it out.  In this Supreme Court ruling the court did not actually uphold Obamacare.  What they did was rule on two specific challenges to Obamacare.  If you think about it, everyone was focused on winning based on the individual mandate being unconstitutional because they felt there was little chance to win on either the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper cause.  This is why so many where shocked and disappointed when it appeared that the individual mandate was upheld.  But the reality is that the court was not asked to review the constitutionality of the entire law, just two specific provisions of the law.  The court could not opine on things not even challenged.  The Supreme Court can only rule in response to questions raised in actual lawsuits.   For example the Supreme Court couldn’t on its own just review this law and issue an opinion as to whether it was a good idea or even whether it was constitutional.  It had to wait until a lawsuit reached the court and then rule on the issues in that lawsuit.

Putting that in perspective, the Supreme Court actually struck down the individual mandate in both the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.  They only upheld the tax provision of the individual mandate.  The only thing they upheld was the authority of congress to pass a tax.  They specifically ruled that congress cannot force anyone to buy anything.  This will turn out to be a landmark Supreme Court decision reversing decades of abuse of the Commerce Clause by the federal government.  It is a huge States Rights victory.

Second, the Supreme Court gave all those states who argued against having to implement expensive Medicaid expansions that are not funded.  Instead of funding them, the federal government threatened to cut off existing funding, which is inadequate, to force the states to implement new programs, which are not funded at all.  The bottom line is that the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot force the states to adopt entitlement programs for which it has provided no funding.  I expect bright constitutional attorneys to start challenging a lot of other federal laws based on this decision.

For decades, the Supreme Court has allowed the government more and more intrusion into our laws based on an absurd reading of the Commerce Clause.  The Roberts decision reversed all of that.  The new standard is that the Federal Government can only regulate interstate Commerce that already exists.   Here is why that really matters, even with regard to health care.  There is already legislation that restricts regulation of insurance to states.  Insurance is not sold across state lines.  This was done specifically to avoid an abusive federal government from dominating our lives by making federal regulations of insurance.  This is the reason I cringe when Republicans propose allowing people to buy insurance across state lines.  That, in my opinion, would do more damage than Obamacare because it would ultimately result in the federal government regulating all insurance.

When Republicans and conservatives take a breath and they start listening to people who actually understand constitutional law, they are going to realize that Justice Roberts gave us our constitution back.  The following article from American Thinker confirms my own obviously shallow, and admittedly amatheur, interpretation of this ruling:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/the_chief_justice_done_good.html

Good Morning.

TDM

The Obama administration is celebrating the ‘Supreme Court decision to uphold the individual mandate.  The Obama administration is estatic at what they consider to be a huge victory.  But upon closer reading of the decision, it may actually doom Obama care.

First, Roberts said that the individual mandate was upheld because it was a tax.  It was not upheld under the commerce clause.  That matters for a lot of reasons.  One was that Obamacare was sold on the basis that it wasn’t a tax.  It is.  Another was that if congress can pass a tax, they can repeal a tax.  If the tax is repealed, Obama care is gone.

Second, the ruling says the individual mandate wasn’t constitutional under the Commerce clause.  It also said the federal government cannot require states to take on huge new federally mandated entitlement programs for which there is no funding. That will kill more than Obamacare.  It will kill a ton of unpopular federal mandates, including benefits states are required to provide illegal aliens.  This decision will have a major impact on these programs.   Ultimately, this probably gives the states the right to withdraw from Obamacare.  Keep in mind that 26 states have already filed lawsuits against Obama care.  They actually won.  The court ruled that the government cannot do this under the commerce clause.  I predict that states will begin immediately withdrawing from Obamacare. 

Third.  This will energize the Republican base even more than it was before.  This law does not have majority support and the campaign, in addition to being about the economy, will be about repealing Obamacare.  That will help Republicans.  The Democrat euphoria is likely to be quickly replaced with dispair when they realize they have been given the ultimate poison pill.

Fourth.  If States withdraw from Obamacare, as I predict, the only thing left will be the individual tax.  In other words they will get all the pain and none of the promise.

If you’re a supporter of Obamacare, you might rethink your celebration.  If you are opposed, there may be real joy in the morning and the morning may come sooner than you think.  Nothing will dismantle Obamacare faster than to have a majtority of states withdraw.

TDM

I think children are born with an instinctive ability to push their parent’s buttons.  They are gifted from birth to say or do just the right thing designed to create maximum frustration.  As a grandfather, watching from a safe distance, this can be fun to watch.  It is seldom as amusing when your own buttons are being pushed.

President Obama is pushing all the buttons guaranteed to infuriate large voting blocs.  This is either incredible stupid or unbelievably brilliant.  This will either win him the election or it will result in the worst thumping in a Presidential election in our nation’s history. 

This President is at war with the American people on subjects where liberals have had zero success at the polls.  Thanks to recent developments showing that a fetus is far more than just a lump of inert tissue, more and more Americans are moving away from the pro-choice position.  Gay marriage has never been approved by voters anywhere at any time.  We have gay marriage only because of activist judges and tone deaf legislatures.  Voter ID laws have strong bi-partisan support.  The vast majority of people want our immigration laws enforced.  That is why so many states passed legislation very similar to that passed by Arizona.  Finally, it is becoming increasingly clear that the administration is trying to cover-up something big with regard to “Fast & Furious.”

So, either Obama knows more about what the average American thinks than anyone else, or he is making huge mistakes.  There is no middle ground here.  Key Democrats are deserting him in droves.  The money is drying up so fast that the Obama campaign is now suggesting people forego wedding gifts so guests can donate to his re-election campaign instead.  The latest rumor is that Democrats are even having trouble raising money for the Democratic National Convention.  When people won’t spring for a party, the Party is obviously in serious trouble.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-26/democrats-may-drop-speedway-event-at-charlotte-convention.html

We should have predicted this.  The most naïve, radical and inexperienced man to ever run for President would be extremely unlikely to miraculously morph into a brilliant skilled executive while in office.  Obama never was a brilliant campaigner; he won because of the campaign run on his behalf by CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and to some extent Fox News.  It was the main stream media that facilitated the myth of brilliance and leadership.  Obama himself has nothing to say.  All of his speeches are just replays of Democratic talking points.  This is so bad that even Democrats are bored.  The only real question is why did anyone expect anything different?

TDM

The Obama adminstration sued the State of Arizona to try and stop Arizona from enforcing federal immmigration laws.  The provision that really mattered was whether Arizona could stop people and ask for documentation.  The court upheld that portion of the law.  That was the whole point.  The Arizona law had other provisions, such as one making it illegal for illegals to seek employment.  I think the courts struck that down because it is absurd.  It wouldn’t be necessary for Arizona to have its own immigration laws if the Federal Government just enforced existing law.  By definition, it is already illegal to be illegal under federal law.  The problem is not the law, it is the failure of the Federal government to enforce the law.

Obama doubled down on disaster when in a desperate bid to maintain the coveted hispanic vote he announced that the Federal Government would stop deporting certain students.  The truth is that this did nothing.  No one was enforcing emmigration laws on students before.  When is the last time you heard about a raid on a high school campus or a college campus where students were herded off on the path to deportation.  Right!  It wasn’t happening. 

So in reality, all those illegal students got nothing.  But Obama is on the public record as deliberately refusing to enforce federal law.  There is a huge difference between the Federal Government choosing how to spent its time and resources and adopting  a policy of deliberately refusing to enforce the law.  Obama swore an oath to enforce the law.  He cannot arbitrarily decide which law is legitimate and which is not.

The Supreme Court just gave Obama a very public rebuke.  This was a UNANIMOUS decision.  The Obama administration cannot dismiss this as a partisan Supreme Court decision.  Ultimately the Supreme Court of the United States reminded everyone that is it congress, not Obama, who writes the laws and it is still illegal to be illegal.

TDM

The Obama administration is desperately trying to pretend that operation Fast & Furious started under George Bush.  There is a good reason for that.  The more people learn about Fast & Furious, the more angry they become.  What really happened is that under the Bush administration there was a program called Operation Wide Receiver.  ATF operatives observed guns being sold illegally.  They let the transaction get completed, followed the guns and then tried to apprehend those who received them.  Sometimes, embarrassingly,  the bad guys got away.  This is a pretty standard law enforcement tactic that has been used for decades.  It is the standard practice of watching the little guy and hoping he leads to the big guy.

Following is an article from Investors Business Daily, that describes the two programs:

http://news.investors.com/article/615871/201206221823/fast-and-furious-different-than-wide-receiver.htm

The big difference is that under Fast & Furious, agents were prevented from tracking weapons at all.  The following two paragraphs explain this very clearly:

ATF agents involved in Fast and Furious have testified that they were ordered not to track the weapons and in cases where interdiction was possible they were ordered to stand down and actually watch the weapons walk.

ATF Special Agent John Dodson has testified how in one instance guns were sold to known illegal buyers who took them to a stash house. Against orders from his superiors, Dodson kept the stash house under surveillance and when a vehicle showed up to transfer the weapons to their ultimate destination, he called for an interdiction team to move in, seize the weapons and arrest the traffickers. His superiors refused, and the guns disappeared without surveillance.

While this was clearly stupid, stupidity itself is an inadequate explanation.  ATF agents ready, willing and able to intervene were prevented from doing their jobs.  Why?

There have been other cases where Federal Agents were prevented from doing their job.  There is even a report that CIA agents were prepared to take out Osama bin Laden, but that they couldn’t get permission from then President Bill Clinton.   It appears as if the U.S. knew where Osama bin Laden was hiding for over 8 months before they finally got the necessary permission from President Barack Obama to take action.  Perhaps this was just another case of indecisive and incompetent leadership. 

But, in this case, it could be even worse.  One has to wonder whether or not at least some people in the Obama administration wanted guns to walk to Mexico.  Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had made false claims that a majority of guns recovered in Mexico came from the U.S.  They used these false claims to make the case for more gun control.  The ATF quickly corrected the record and explained that a majority of weapons recovered in Mexico couldn’t be traced at all.   One would assume that the Obama administration was less than thrilled at being embarrassed by an ATF spokesman stupidly answering a question truthfully.  Perhaps the best explanation for Fast & Furious is that the ATF was taking heat and someone was looking for a way out.

It obviously would really help the Obama administration if suddenly a lot of guns recovered in Mexico could be conveniently traced back to the United States.  Problem solved.

There is no evidence of this, but the logic is pretty obvious.   Several top level conservatives has opined that this was the whole point of Fast & Furious.  The truth is we don’t know what happened, we just know that the Obama administration has desperately tried to prevent the disclosure of critical documents.

We also know that the DOJ gave a letter to a congressional committee that was a lie.  It is important to remember what lie was told:

“the  Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives makes “every effort” to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally before they cross into Mexico. It added that the allegation that the ATF had “sanctioned or otherwise knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons” to suspicious people was false.”

The DOJ has admitted this was not true.  Attorney General Eric Holder testified before congress that he had only learned about Fast & Furious a few weeks earlier.  When e-mails were discovered proving that this was not true, Holder “corrected” his testimony.  Then just a few days ago, Holder arrogantly said that former Attorney General Michael Mikasey had been briefed on this.  Senator Grassley, who apparently talks to Mikasey, immediately realized that this was another grandstanding lie.  He challenged Holder to either provide documents proving that this was true, or to apolologize to Murkasey.  Holder sent a deputy to sheepishly admit that Holder had made an inadvertent mistake.

We don’t know the truth, yet, but we sure know who has been telling lies.  Under the circumstances, who in their right mind would consider trusting Eric Holder to investigate this?  I think we are headed toward a Special Prosecutor and I expect this story to move at light speed.

So far everyone agrees that Fast & Furious was stupid, perhaps criminally stupid.  But, as pointed out above, stupidity is an inadequate explanation.

TDM

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney had a really bad terrible awful day.  The day after Eric Holder had to admit he was wrong in claiming that Attorney General Murkasey was briefed about gun walking with regard to Operation Wide Receiver, Carney repeated the accusation. Nice!

http://washingtonexaminer.com/holder-retracts-claim-bush-team-knew-about-fast-and-furious/article/2500157

 He tried to claim that the Bush administration started this mess and Holder was the one who stopped it.  This is laughably false.  I know this is hard to imagine, but I honestly don’t think Carney knew that Holder had already admitted that his accusation against Murkasey was false.  I think Carney was sent out there with little or no preparation and he walked into a buzz saw.  If that is true, he has to be furious.  Following is a transcript of the news conference:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/fast-and-furious-todays-qs-for-os-wh/

Notice how Carney tried desperately to drown out questions by repeating Democratic talking points.  But Jake Tapper, from ABC News, asked very direct questions.  He asked whether any of the documents being blocked by executive privilege, are to or from individuals in the White House or are they all internal DOJ documents.

Tapper understands that the Obama administration has a serious problem.  If those documents are not to and from individuals in the White House, then executive privilege cannot possibly apply.  If they are, then this is an admission that the White House, contrary to public comments by Obama, was in the loop.  Fast and Furious now directly involves the President of the United States.  The minute Obama claimed executive privilege he implicated himself in this sordid affair.  Remember that even if Obama was not involved in the actual operation, if he was involved in the cover-up he is in big trouble. Richard Nixon was forced out of office for doing exactly that.

Tapper also pointed out that Operation Fast and Furious began in 2009, when Obama was President.  Carney claimed that this started under the Bush administration, but Tapper knows that is not true.  In addition, Holder has already admitted that this is not true.  The blame everything on Bush strategy has officially run out of steam.

As soon as he got a chance to get a word in edgewise, Tapper pressed Carney again on whether or not any of the documents are to or from anyone in the White House.  He was not deterred by the Democratic talking points. 

Then Tapper got Carney to admit that the DOJ wrote a letter to congress that said something that was not true.  He asked why there was not a legitimate investigation and oversight responsibility to find out who at the DOJ knew they were giving false information.

This story has serious legs.  In a very short period of time you are going to hear more and more people say:  “What did the President know and when did he know it?  The Obama administration has gone from panic to fop sweat.  The more you hear people describe this as a witch hunt or a racist political fishing expedition the more you know that Issa and company are getting close to the target.

Democrats are screaming at the top of their lungs because they are desperate to drown out Issa.  But Issa is playing this brilliantly.  He has made no outrageous claims he has just stayed focused on what is clearly reasonable.  He just keeps asking for documents.  That makes him a very dangerous opponent for this administration. 

In addition, Senator Grassley has figured out something important.  He knows that Obama never provides documents about anything.  So he waited until Holder made a blatantly false accusation and he pounced.  When Holder falsely claimed that Murkasey was briefed on this, Grassley demanded either proof or an apology.  The DOJ had to admit they have no evidence and they tried to spin this as an inadvertent error.  No one will buy that nonsense.  This is a brilliant tactic to use against Obama.  He has stonewalled everybody since the beginning on just about every subject.  Grassley just found a way to make him put up or shut up.

I suspect that both Issa and Murkasey have copies of original documents.  This creates a huge problem for Holder.  If he does not produce the documents he has a problem.  If he produces false documents, he has a problem.  The only thing we know for sure is that he has deliberately lied to congress on at least two occasions. 

Richard Nixon was removed from office because he covered up Watergate.  Ultimately, the cover-up was far more serious than the original.  This sure looks a lot like history repeating itself. 

 The sharks are on the hunt and there’s blood in the water.  It is time to watch for the inevitable feeding frenzy.

 TDM

Eric Holder just asked for and received authorization from President Obama to claim Executive Privilege with regard to the Fast and Furious documents.  This was a desperate attempt to stave off a comtempt vote in congress.    Both Holder and Obama must know that this is going to generate a constitutional crisis.  Issa is not going to back down.  He already had substantial support in congress.   He went the extra mile to try and allow Holder a way out.  It is important to remember that Democrats aren’t impressed with Fast and Furious either.

One can only assume that the information in those documents Issa is demanding is so damaging that the Obama administration is willing to risk this show down to prevent their disclosure.  I do not know what is in those documents, but I do know that both Obama and Holder are desperate to keep them out of public view.

The following link is to the Fox News report on this subject:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/20/house-republicans-tee-up-imminent-contempt-vote-against-holder/

Don’t be surprised if this story takes on a life of its own.  NBC ignored this story for over a year, but recently gave a short report on it.  This is because the stench has become overwhelming.  We already know that Holder lied to congress.  We already know that the DOJ gave a letter to congress that it knew was false. 

I suspect that an increasing number of the Democratic faithful is convinced that Obama is on the way to a landslide loss in the November election.  At some point, they may give up on saving Obama and try to save the Democratic Party.  I have always felt that Obama has more to fear from Democrats than Republicans.  Whether they are right or not, Republicans are becoming more and more convinced that Obama is a big loser.  They want Obama to keep on being the gift that keeps on giving.  If this continues, the sky is the limit for a Republican victory in the fall. 

But Darryl Issa is a man of integrity and he cannot ignore the blatant cover-up connected with Fast and Furious.   He will pursue this and I suspect he is going to get a lot more Democratic support than anyone imagines.  We may be headed for a constitutional crisis at light speed.  I wonder if Obama realizes that with this last step, he may have put himself in a position where even Eric Holders resignation will be insufficient to quiet things down.

Looks pretty desperate to me.  This makes me really wonder what is in those documents.  I’ll bet a lot of people, including Democrats, are asking the same question.

TDM

President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladmir Putin met Monday and by all accounts, it didn’t go well.  While Putin has always been a problem for the U.S., he has become much more of a problem lately.  I believe that part of the reason is that Putin clearly respected George Bush, but he does not respect Barack Obama.  If you watched any of the video of their joint appearances, the body language of Putin toward Obama was remarkably bad.  He demonstrated raw, public distain for Obama.

Following is a link to an article by the Hill:

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/un-treaties/233401-chill-in-the-air-as-president-putin-put-a-gloss-on-summit

The body language of Putin was too obvious to ignore:

When Obama spoke, the pool report said Putin mostly starred downward, and made no eye contact with Obama. Syria was the last topic broached by the U.S. president. Putin “sat expressionless during this part of Mr. Obama’s statement,” according to a pool report. “He bit his lip and stared down at the floor.”

Putin agreed that there needs to be a cessation of violence.  But he did not agree that the international community should intervene, like they did in Libya.  He has a point.  I think most Americans are glad Gaddafi is gone, but Libya is a real mess.  The media knows this, but there is very little reporting.  Following is an article in the New York Times that explains the problem.  Did anyone hear any of the other major media outlets, like CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS or FOX NEWS do a current report on Libya after the revolution?

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html

Perhaps, just perhaps, the good people in Libya will prevail and peace and prosperity will fill the air.  But my hunch is that ultimate control will go to those with the most guns and the willingness to do whatever it takes to gain power.  We should have learned our lesson in Iraq.  It was relatively easy to get rid of Saddam Hussein.  However, we soon discovered that evil will always try to exploit a power vacuum.

We started a very dangerous trend with the Vietnam War.  Regardless of why we went to war, ultimately we decided it wasn’t worth it after all.  Actually, I shouldn’t say we.  Richard Nixon sure didn’t believe that and neither did Gerald Ford.  But the Democrats in congress were determined to end the war, regardless of the consequences.  Once Nixon was safely removed from power, Democrats made sure that President Ford could not possibly continue the fight.  Then Democrats guaranteed disaster by voting to cut off funds to help South Vietnam defend itself. 

They succeeded, we left and the results were awful.  In addition, to what happened in South Vietnam, the North Vietnamese supported the Khmer Rouge take-over of Cambodia.  When the U.S. packed up and went home, with our tail between our legs, millions of people were slaughtered in Cambodia.  Those people involved in the anti-war movement gloried in their great success in ending the war; but while it ended for us, it didn’t end for everyone.  Those self-righteous, anti-war protestors seldom consider the terrible price paid by so many others because we left. 

George Bush would not withdraw from Iraq until he had done everything possible to enable Iraq to survive as a free country.  He felt that leaving before the job was done would have thrown away the sacrifices made by those who fought in Iraq.  Having watched our sacrifices in Vietnam thrown away by a Democratic congress, I understand completely.

President Assad is clearly a bad dude.  Perhaps we can find a way to get rid of him.  But the real question is who or what will take his place.  Based on what has happened in Libya and now Egypt, it is hard to be optimistic.

TDM

A lot of people were shocked to discover that the Wisconsin polls were so wrong.  While some polls correctly had Walker winning by 7 points, others had the race a dead heat.  The challenge was with the assumptions used by the people taking the poll.  For one thing, there is a difference between surveying likely voters and surveying registered voters.  Republicans are more likely to vote than Democrats.  But the problem is more than just this one issue.  Pollsters cannot interview everyone, only a random sample of people.  Let’s assume that a poll surveys 600 registered voters.  This is not necessarily a truly random sample, so they adjust the results based on the demographics they expect.  Let me explain that.  Let’s assume that a pollster believes that 40% of people are Democrats, 40% are Republicans and 20% are independents.  They would expect the survey to draw 240 Democrats and 240 Republicans.  If they have too many Democrats or too many Republicans they will adjust the results.  To keep this short, I will assume they do not adjust because of the percentage of independents. 

Most of the assumptions with regard to political party are based on the 2008 Presidential election.  But analysts know that things have changed dramatically since 2008.  Remember the 2010 election?  There was a significant movement from Democrat to Republican or Independent.   No one really knows the correct percentage of people registered in either party. 

In many cases the pollsters were anticipating a huge discrepancy between Democrats and Republicans.  I have seen reports that this could be 9 or even 10 points.  That really impacts the results.  Let’s go back to that 600 voter sample.  Let assume the pollster expected 45% Democrat and 35% Republican, because of the 2008 election results.  That means they expected 270 Democrats and 210 Republicans.  If they interviewed 600 voters and they got 240 Democrats and 240 Republicans, they would make an adjustment.  Assume that the survey showed a tie between Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama.  The pollster would assume that Democrats were under represented by 30 voters and Republicans were over represented by 30 voters.  So the results of the poll would be changed from 50% – 50% to 55% – 45% in favor of Obama.  The actual way results are adjusted varies between pollsters, but I think this demonstrates my point.

This is not necessarily a devious plot to make Obama look better.  Pollsters may strongly believe the results they are reporting.  This is just the predictable result of using flawed assumptions.  It is exactly this type of reasoning that resulted in the prediction of a 50 50 tie in Wisconsin.  When the votes were counted, Walker won 53 to 47, a bigger margin than he won by in 2010.

This is one reason the Wisconsin election really matters.  In addition to the obvious momentum for Republicans and the public rebuke of unions, it is going to force pollsters to re-think their basic assumptions.  Regardless of which party they favor, no pollster wants to be that wrong.  They get paid for getting it right.  Watch for polls in the new few days and weeks to start showing a significant difference in the surveys.  They are likely to show major improvement for Mitt Romney.  Of course Democrats will respond by saying the polls are flawed, but they will be paying close attention.

The reality is that while Obama has had a couple of really rotten weeks and his polls numbers will probably suffer as a result, the real change will be the result of more accuracy in the polls themselves.  I consider this chump change.  A lot of people realized they were taken for chumps, so they’ve changed parties.

TDM

It’s now official.  All of those polls showing that Obama is leading Romney are worthless.  Last night every network, including Fox, started off their broadcasts with the expectation of a recall election that was too close to call.  But to anyone watching the actual results, it was obvious from the start that Scott Walker was winning and he was winning big.  What happened was that the media was conducting exit polls and they were predicting results based on those polls.  They weren’t even close.

There are several important lessons to learn from yesterdays recall election in Wisconsin.

1.  Scott Walker won big.  The unions took their best shot at him and missed.  He proved that a strong leader can make the difficult decision and not only survive, they can thrive.  He is now a superstar in American politics.

2.  Obama lost big.  His failure to support Tom Barrett hurt himself with the union vote all across the country.  Obama forced the unions to recognize that with Obama it is always just about him.  He didn’t campaign in Wisconsin because it didn’t benefit him.  He will pay a high price for this.

3.  Bill Clinton was elevated.  He reminded everyone that he, not Obama, is the real leader in the Democratic Party.  Watch for party leaders to put enormous pressure on Obama to replace Biden with Hillary.  Don’t be surprised if:  1.  Michelle Obama vetoes that or 2.  Hillary says no.

4.  Unions, particularly public sector unions, lost.  Scott Walker stared down the public sector unions, in a union state, and he won.  Membership in public sector unions has dropped precipitously in Wisconsin during the last year.   The standard union intimidation tactics no longer work.

5.  Don’t expect the liberal left to accept the results of the election.  Liberals only believe in Democracy when they get the results they want.  Scott Walker is already receiving death threats. 

6.  The CNN broadcast crew was in a state of shock last night.  They actually did a very good job in reporting the results and the significance of the results.  I view this as a distancing of themselves from Obama.

7.  All those polls, showing a close Presidential race are suspect.  We learned that people who hate the main stream media don’t talk to the main stream media.  That is why the exit polls were so wrong.  The majority of people willing to talk to the CNN folks with clipboards were liberal Democrats who were voting for the recall.  That is why CNN and everyone else thought the election was going to be close, until actual results showed that it wasn’t.  Every organization that has been taking political polls has to rethink their analysis. 

The exit polls showed Obama with a small lead over Romney.  But when these exit polls are adjusted to reflect the opinion of people who were not interviewed, the result is a toss up with Obama getting less than 50% of the vote.  Incumbents polling less than 50% almost always lose elections.  The undecideds typically go to the challenger.  At best, Wisconsin is now a toss-up state for Obama.  In reality, Wisconsin should probably be rated as “leaning Republican.”  No one wants to admit this because a Republican Presidential candidate hasn’t won in Wisconsin since 1984.  But then no one predicted Scott Walker either.

Final analysis.  The folks at MSNBC were practically weeping at the results.  They know what is coming in November.  Wisconsin confirmed their worst fears.  Best recommendation:  Invest in tissue, liberal Democrats will need lots of it in November.

TDM