I think I’ll start a pool to predict the day that Obama gives the speech explaining that “due to circumstances beyond his control” he will have to renege on all his tax pledges. Cap gains are definitely going north of 25% with Rubin at Treasury. We have already learned that $250K is not the real Obama threshold for higher taxes on individuals and small business. Biden was talking $150K, and that is still is not going to be enough. Its going lower. Guaranteed.

Interesting that Obama supporters who claimed that Obama should be elected because he was going to be a great transcendental bipartisan healer and unifier, are now saying that compromise is really not important. What is now important? – Do it our way. After all. It’s a mandate donchaknow?

Yeah. That attitude, those policies, will need strong opposition. I just hope there is enough GOP backbone left in the Senate to stop it.

“I hold out some faith that either the Dems will be smart enough not to overreach.. I actually think an Obama presidency and a Republican congress (comprised of new Republicans, not in the Tom Delay model) would make for a far more effective government than would McCain and the Democrats. – ASC

I don’t disagree about the D president with a R Congress vs the opposite. You have to get pretty granular in the history of the divided government vs one party rule, perhaps drawing conclusions with insufficient data points to draw broad conclusions, but it does appear from the record that fiscal responsibility stack ranking are (from best to worst):

1) President- D Congress- R
2) President- R Congress- D
3) President- R Congress- R
4) President- D Congress- D

The problem is the damage that can occur over the next two years if the Republicans lose the filibuster or are so cowed by the “mandate” that they fail to stand up and obstruct an Obama administration with an explicit agenda of a trillion dollars of new spending. I’ll stand on my statement, I cannot understand how any fiscal conservative, libertarian, or limited government advocate could vote to take that risk.

@george – It is just a question of how much damage gets done to the country in order to create that illusory “deterrence” you are hoping for. I cannot think of any example where a politician with a perceived mandate was deterred by anything except hardball political opposition. Which may not exist for Obama.

@Jim S – To maintain this view, one must pretend that the projected large Democratic majority in the Senate does not exist and will have nothing to say about confirming a McCain appointment. It is a simplistic view that completely ignores John McCain’s moderate record in the Senate with judicial appointments of both parties. John McCain led the “Gang of 14″ bipartisan moderates in the Senate against George Bush,earning him the enmity of his own party to preserve the filibuster in the Senate for the minority Democratic party on judicial picks. He did so at the risk of his presidential ambitions, and for no other reason than because it was the right thing to do for the country. And – oh yeah – to force the GOP’s hand on more moderate judicial selections. One wonders where we will find such a strong voice for moderation in the Democratic Party that is willing to buck their own party establishment. I don’t see it anywhere. (from the linked part of my post – I have to take a few shortcuts in the comments)

@gljunket – I also got no respect from RedState.com when I was pushing divided government in 2006 (they banned me). 80%+ of the electorate are pure partisans. Pushing a consistent divided government voting heuristic means that – by definition – I will be opposing 80% of the electorate over several election cycles. For me, disrespect from partisans is a badge of honor.

dyre – I like it. Perhaps I should change my logo.

TerrenceC – Yes I am. Actually, just getting started. I should have my first 2010 divided government post later this week.

“If the divided government of the 20 months “has begun to reverse the damage of the 2001-2006 One Party Rule” then why would it be a bad thing to vote with the Democrats 97% of the time? – bunny

It is always a good thing to have opposition representing a large percentage of the American population with a share of power in Washington. We need opposition to an imperial presidency like we had with Bush and will have again with Obama. We had meaningful opposition for the last two years. There will be no meaningful oppostion for the next two years.

My point is not that Obama’s voting record was wrong for the last two years (although it certainly was on FISA when his campaign was bought off by ATT). My point is that there is absolutely not one shred of evidence in Obama’s voting record to show that he is the bipartisan “uniter” that he claims to be. His voting record and history in the US Senate is the record of a partisan hack – and in the State Senate the voting record of your run-of-the-mill Chicago machine pol. That is his voting record. It is wildly at variance with his rhetoric. He talks a good game though. And that is all that really matters isn’t it? Because when what a politician says does is at variance with with what a politician does, we should always go with what they say. It is easier that way.

I think you’re wrong GL. First literally only a small percentage of people who read blogs leave comments. It seems that only the impassioned few leave comments.

Secondly the name Donklephnat is till valid. Of the people that post here only Justin and Alan voted for Obama (possible exception of Fools) MW is voting for McCain and I assume Nick Ragone is as well. I myself voted for Bob Barr. So while the most frequent posters here did in fact vote for Obama it seems the majority of writers here didn’t (or there may be a tie). Either way when one considers the leanings of the contributors of this blog versus the number of of “pro-Obama” posts on this blog it breaks roughly even.

I think you’re wrong GL. First literally only a small percentage of people who read blogs leave comments. It seems that only the empassioned few leave comments.

Secondly the name Donklephnat is till valid. Of the people that post here only Justin and Alan voted for Obama (possible exception of Fools) MW is voting for McCain and I assume Nick Ragone is as well. I myself voted for Bob Barr. So while the most frequent posters here did in fact vote for Obama it seems the majority of writers here didn’t (or there may be a tie). Either way when one considers the leanings of the contributors of this blog versus the number of of “pro-Obama” posts on this blog it breaks roughly even.

Given how inept the Dems were the last time they had total power, they not only couldn’t pass Clinton’s signature plan (health care) they lost both houses of congress the very next election. I hold out some faith that either the Dems will be smart enough not to overreach and doom themselves or they will overreach and, well, doom themselves.

I actually think an Obama presidency and a Republican congress (comprised of new Republicans, not in the Tom Delay model) would make for a far more effective government than would McCain and the Democrats. Maybe I’m twisting my reasoning into a knot and look like an ass in the process, but what can I say? My cynicism is relapsing remitting.

http://blog.skewz.com/2008/11/top-7-most-unbiased-articles-of.html

This means your call for a divided government is a call for a government that is divided between the effective and honest part and the corrupt and incompetent part. Seems like a job only half completed. Why not just vote out all the Republicans?

As we’ve discussed here: http://donklephant.com/2008/10/17/meet-the-new-boss-same-as-the-old-boss/#comments and in a dozen other places it boils down to different priorities. I feel like it is important to make an example of those who have so decimated our reputation, raped our liberties, over-stretched our resources, discounted science, and catered to the lowest common denominator. I think this is incredibly necessary to provide a deterrent for future abusers. I take that plus the incredible seeming competency of Obama and the people he surrounds himself with and don’t look back. You on the other hand want to play the safer hand, that’s fair but as to who the country agrees with. One word:

Scoreboard.