Party outlook, post-election I |

Party outlook, post-election I

The historic 2010 tea-party-fueled midterm “wave” election was driven by substantive policy, such as reducing spending and repealing or defunding ObamaCare. Despite controlling the purse strings, the GOP did neither.

This year’s “wave” found the GOP “campaign of nothing” besting six years of Democratic Party policy failure — a refutation of liberalism rather than an affirmation of Republicanism. Weakness is not a virtue to emulate or vote for, as the GOP articulated nothing, fought for even less, and now must not be as timid and devoid of substance as its campaign. GOP Senate control was granted to halt President Obama’s agenda, not to cross the aisle post-election and enact it. ObamaCare and lawless amnesty for millions of illegal aliens are crippling blows the republic can’t arise from and immediate challenges the Republicans can’t run from.

These are perilous times that demand statesmen, not statists, performing public service rather than self-service. Republicans must justify the governing opportunity given them through bold legislation, aggressively reversing rather than managing the nation’s decline and transformation amid expected howls of liberal and media protestations.

The GOP’s Senate victory and predictable claim of a mandate is akin to the rooster taking credit for the sunrise. A “loyal opposition” party using “We only control one-half of two-thirds of Congress” to excuse cowardice and inaction reveals itself to be neither. Which GOP has taken control will determine both America’s fate — and its own.

Steven Donnelly


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.