DID VOTERS SAY 'YES' TO THE 'PARTY OF NO'?

Did voters in the elections last night say, "Yes," to "The Party of No?" Were the convincing victories in last night's elections a victory for the Republican Party? And, were they a defeat for President Obama?

OBAMA AND DEMOCRATS, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS

To answer these questions, let me ask you another one. Are there any of us so naive to think that the president and his worship team wouldn't have taken 100% credit for the elections if the Democrat candidates had won? Wouldn't they have been talking about Obama's well-endowed coattails?

Let's take New Jersey's gubernatorial race between the incumbent, Democrat Jon Corzine and the Republican challenger, Chris Christie. Obama slaughtered McCain in New Jersey by 15%! There are 700,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans in the State of New Jersey. New Jersey is deep, deep Democrat country. Corzine, the former Goldman Sachs executive, injected millions of his own money into the race, outspending Christie by $12 million. Adding insult to Corzine's injury was that the Independent in the race, who received 6% of the vote, was pulling votes from Christie, directly benefiting Corzine. It was not enough.

OBAMA CAMPAIGNS AND DOES TV ADS FOR "LOUSY CANDIDATE," CREIGH DEEDS

Immediately after Democrat Creigh Deed's loss in the Virginia Governor's race, the Democrat "spin doctors" and propagandists released talking points that claimed Deeds was a "lousy candidate" in an attempt to provide cover to the clear referendum against Obama's far-left policies which aren't working and will bankrupt the nation. As in every case, anyone who sheds a negative light on Obama is quickly thrown under the bus.

If Creigh Deeds was such a "lousy candidate", how could the president believe that he's good for the State of Virginia? Is it the president's policy to support "lousy candidates"? Isn't this a waste of the president's time? Why would the president stake his reputation, whatever is left of it, on campaigning for a "lousy candidate"? Doesn't he have better things to do?

OBAMA'S UNBELIEVABLE, FAILED ATTEMPT TO REDEFINE CORZINE AS CONSERVATIVE

Obama, who can't seem to find the time to run the war or the economy, campaigned hard for Corzine, including giving a laughable speech, just two days prior to the election, in which he not only insisted that Corzine wasn't a typical "tax and spend" liberal, but attempted to attach conservative language to Corzine. In other words, he couldn't run on Corzine's actual liberal "tax and spend" record. The president said,

"But let's look at the record. Jon Corzine is a governor who's provided more property tax relief than any governor in New Jersey's history. (Applause.) He's the first governor in 60 years who's actually reduced the size of government in this state."

Of course, this is nonsense and news to anyone who lives in New Jersey, one of the liberal wonderlands and one of the highest taxed states in the Union. Making such a ridiculous statement shows the low regard the president has for voters' intellect. Then, in typical Obama "slight of hand" fashion, following his attempt to recreate Corzine as a conservative, he immediately lavished praises of all of the governor's wonderful government programs that he's increased spending on. This is a classic political tactic of the left: "Tax and spend" liberal policies followed by denials of their "tax and spend" policies. The voters of New Jersey and Virginia weren't buying.

The bottom line is that the president went "all-in" for the Goldman Sachs "rich guy", "limousine liberal" Jon Corzine, thinking that his empty "hope and change" stale rhetoric would push Corzine over the top. Obama's efforts had a neutral effect at best, and a negative effect at worst.

REPUBLICAN PARTY LEADERSHIP SCREWED THE POOCH IN HOFFMAN RACE

While Republicans overwhelmingly swept the gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey, the 23rd District House race in New York was won by Democrat, Bill Owens. The loss by the last minute, Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman, can be laid completely at the feet at the Republican Party. They spent $900,000 on a Republican-In-Name-Only, Dede Scozzafava, who was much more liberal than the Democrat in the race, the eventual winner, Bill Owens.

Scozzafava, after cliff diving in the polls, dropped out of the race. In her resignation speech, she claimed loyalty and love for the Republican Party. Scozzafava rewarded the Republican's financial support by switching to the Democrat Party only 48 hours later, throwing her support to the Democrat, Owens. Because of her late withdrawal, Scozzafava's name stayed on the ballet, no doubt costing Hoffman some votes.

Republican Party leadership botched the New York race, putting party politics before the conservative principles they are supposed to uphold. They threw money at a candidate, Scozzafava, that is the antithesis of conservative values.

In her previous position as a New York State Assemblywoman, Dede Scozzafava, voted for 190 tax increases, bank bailouts, earmarks and pork barrel spending. She proudly supported Obama’s impoverished, ‘Stimulus Package’ which ballooned the nation's debt and has had zero effect on the stated goal of providing jobs. Every single Republican in Congress voted against it.

Needless to say, it's incomprehensible that the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars running TV ads against a Reagan Conservative, Doug Hoffman, including running an ad saying Scozzafava is the only candidate in the race who has a proven record of fighting tax increases! I guess 190 tax increases is now considered "fighting tax increases."

The NRCC told reporters that Dede Scozzafava is a principled Republican, which is a complete lie and a total joke. A principled Republican? I guess that party should be asked if 'principled Republican' now means being endorsed by Obama's corrupt "community organizing" organization, ACORN, and ultra far-left website, Daily Kos, the online voice of the Democrat Party.

INDEPENDENTS MASS EXODUS FROM OBAMA AND DEMOCRATS

The Democrat Party is in deep trouble by following the Obama far-left agenda off the cliff. Twice as many Independents in Virginia, a high percentage that voted for Obama, voted for the Republican winner, Bob McDonnell, and were one-third of the vote. And in New Jersey, in a three way race, Christie received 58% of the Independent vote, compared to only 30% for the loser, Democrat incumbent John Corzine.

In recent, national polls, conservatives outnumber liberals by 2 to 1, and lead in all fifty states. The percentage of independents, or "moderates" describing themselves as leaning conservative has also increased significantly since President Obama took office.

VOTERS SAY "YES" TO THE PARTY OF "NO"

Considering the Republican Party leadership's abhorrent handling of the NY 23 race, yesterday's Republican victories should not be considered as a blanket endorsement for the party. While the percentage of Americans identifying themselves as being politically conservative is on the rise, voters identifying themselves as "Republicans" is not.

The Republican Party were the fortunate recipients of an electorate hellbent on saying, "no." The American people's message of "no" to out-of-control spending, "no" to big government, "no" to the welfare state, "no" to Obamacare, "no" to Cap and Trade, "no" to Obama's Stimulus Plan, "no" to bailouts, "no" to government control of private companies, "no" to socialism, and "no" to fascism, "no" to unconstitutional "czars," and "no" to unlimited government was made loudly, clearly and powerfully. Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and both parties had better be listening, or you will be crushed in the next election.

MESSAGE TO REPUBLICAN PARTY: "NO MORE R-I-N-O'S"

And specifically to the Republican Party leadership is the message that conservatives aren't enamored by any candidate just because they have a (R) next to their name. Conservatives are willing to put founding principles before party and would rather lose an election to a Democrat than support a RINO.

OBAMA, THE GREAT UNIFIER?

President Obama, who campaigned on ushering in a new era of unity, has been much more divisive than any president in memory, and possibly of all-time. However, Obama and his progressive policies have had the unintended consequence of unifying the majority of average Americans, who have never even taken the slightest interest in politics, but are not going to sit idly by while individual rights, the Constitution, and the principles put in place by our Founding Fathers are being trampled upon.

Ignore us at your own peril.

DID VOTERS SAY 'YES' TO THE 'PARTY OF NO'?