Politics

Ever since passage of the Budget Control Act of 2011, most people have assumed that, eventually, some sort of deal would get done. Both sides have something to lose, the thinking went, so both sides will eventually compromise to spare the country from going over the fiscal cliff.

And everyone also assumed that, while the outcome of the election would tilt the balance of power, still both sides had something to lose, so a deal would get done.

And that makes sense, if you assume both sides have something to lose.

But what if, even before the election, one side thought it did NOT have much to lose? What if, in fact, one side thought it had almost nothing to lose and much to gain, and the outcome of the election simply confirmed this calculation? What then?

I think it's true that the election gives no one a mandate--that it was not a sweeping victory for a particular set of policies. But it's a tough day for those of us who thought the policy deficiencies of the past four years were obvious. Clearly, we have work to do, and lessons to learn.

Our principles are not wrong, or insufficient for today's challenges, but we have clearly not sufficiently persuaded the American people how those principles directly benefit them in their daily lives.

We have to convince the American people that freedom is better for them than Big Government. We have to provide support and analysis for our allies in Congress, and we have to work to strengthen their resolve and to help them navigate some difficult policy problems.

Update: More from CNET.

Well, the nanny state bureaucrats did it--they've run another successful American small business into the ground.

BuckyBalls are a desktop magnetic toy, and they're ingenious. They're basically tiny magnets in a variety of colors and shapes--balls, cubes, and rods.

They are targeted at adults, and they've been highly successful. Two entrepreneurs in an apartment with $2,000 started the company in 2009, and in a short period of time BuckyBalls became highly successful, sold in specialty retail stores.

But the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) came after them, and despite the fact that BuckyBalls has jumped through every hoop presented to them by CPSC, finally this year CPSC dropped the hammer. You can read the whole story, in detail, at this link.

Not to brag too much, but I kinda predicted the release of the Benghazi emails.

Kinda.

During the debate between the candidates for Vice President, when Joe Biden threw the State Department under the bus and blamed them for knowing about the terror attack and not telling the White House, I sent out this tweet:

I frequently participate in Politico's "Arena" group policy blog, and last night I posted my reaction to the presidential debate here.

In the New York Times, former conservative David Brooks responds to the leaked video of Mitt Romney talking about his electoral chances with the 47 percent of Americans who are going to vote for Obama because they have no "skin in the game" by referring to him as "Thurston Howell Romney."

It's cute. I'll give him that. We have already gone on record with our responses to the Romney video here and here.

But Thurston Howell Romney should still beat Gilligan Obama. Thurston was not entirely incompetent, after all. He managed to succeed at some things.

Let's take a look at whether or not Gilligan Obama has succeeded. Here are some economic stats that should matter more than any leaked video of a candidate talking to his supporters and simply saying the truth in a way that is uncomfortable to some.

As we've noted, IPI's Resident Scholar Dr. Merrill Matthews is that the Republican National Convention, monitoring policy discussions and participating in a daily live webcast in conjunction with the Washington Times.

Friend of IPI John Feehery goes out on a limb and says Mitt Romney is headed for a big win in November.

According to an opinion piece in today's Politico, Mitt Romney has revealed that he is a Keynesian. Is Romney a Keynesian? Is that a problem? And is anyone surprised?