The five smartest and five worst political decisions of 2012

The worst political decisions came before 202. The GOP did not know how to make productive use of the Teaparty activists and let the illiberal media define them as wacko gun toting, Bible thumping extremists who were more conscerned by what happens in a woman's vagina than what happens in society as a whole. Snarky remarks and selective quotes can be effective when repeated and unchallenged. Combine this with the Chicago Way" of playing politics in which you don't just defeat your enemies, you must utterly destroy them early on, by any means available. This became most urgent after the 2010 elections that swept so many corrupt Democrat fat-cats out of office when the people realized how out of touch the Pelosi and Reed Congress was. The smartest decision was the way the administration allowed gasoline (petrol) prices to decrease in the fourth quarter, not only did this bring relief to the average citizen's budget, but also stimulated buisness activity...much as a tax cut would.

Smartest political decision was made by Senator Snow of Maine not to seek re-election due to the stress of working in a dysfunction Congress. And,... the Maine voters for electing Independent Angus King (moderate as Gov) as her successor in office. I guess they are trying to make up for their election of "tea party" Gov. Lapage from 2 years ago, that's what happens when a system set up for two parties becomes a three way race and the two major parties don't recognize anything or anyone else but themselves. Slainte!

wjb1tex - Its called Gerrymandering after the Governor of Mass. who, in 1812, first used it. "1. to divide a State so as to give one political party a majority in as many districts as possible. 2. to manipulate unfairly so as to gain advantage." (Webster's) In Ohio, there are more liberal voters than conservative ones but since the time of Gov. James Rhodes, and even more so since 2010, the districts have been drawn to give the conservatives the majority of districts. Hence we have a republican state house and state senate. Had the liberal voters all turned out in 2010 (a census year when redistricting was done) as they did in 2008 and 2012, a Democratic Governor might have vetoed the further Republicanization of the state government and our representatives to the national government. As it now stands the U.S. House of Representatives has very few districts where the outcome of a race is not a forgone conclusion (just as the Presidential election was reduced to just a few "swing" states.) This problem is aggrevated by the fact that many voters are wedded to their party and will vote for it even in obvious conflict with their own best interests. While the House does have a low approval rating as a body, many voters still support the representative they voted for to avoid self recrimination.

Add to "Dhimmitude", see page 107 of the Obama healthcare bill.

Add to the worst. Let 's look at what we have learned from this election: Twenty-one of 22 incumbent senators were re-elected, and 353 of 373 incumbent members of the House were re-elected. The American people have re-elected 94 percent of the incumbents who were running for re-election to an institution that has an approval rating of about 9 percent. This indicates, as an electorate, we are a nation of idiots. We're now stuck with the useless, dysfunctional government that we deserve....

Even though we all should be delighted with the ultimate result, funding an incompetent (even dangerous) potential rival's primary campaign ads - as #1 alleges - is simply unethical. In addition, the risks are too great. He or she might win - as the National Socialists did in Weimar Germany. On the other hand, unduely ethical behavior is one of the ways we moderates lost control of the Republican Party to the radical Right in the first place.