Now would certainly be the time to do it. These Tea-Party members of Congress will fold like beach-chairs when faced with the prospect of middle class voters bringing home a lighter paycheck, just so upper earners can skate along.

Scot, agree -- and it's true that while the Wall Street Journal's mainline articles usually give a sense of trying to stick to researched facts and reasoned speculation, their op-ed's often often seem to be right-leaning emotion and hyperbole in the guise of researched facts and reasoned speculation. And, though they work hard at the disguise and some writers are extremely good at it (Peggy Noonan, for one), the effort is clear on thoughtful analysis, and their credibility suffers greatly.

So he wins by a razor thin majority and its an overwhelming mandate? Talk about contorting!

Think back to 2010, when the country overwhelmingly rejected the path Obama had taken on the stimulus, and on Obamacare.  Did a chastened Obama moderate his views to comport with the reality that his policies had been rejected?  No.  He doubled down on his approach, and began to pass laws by executive order.  He was believed to have said "I don't need no stinkin congress".

Now, after he squeezes by with a razo thin victory, the punditry acts as though he has a voter approved mandate to raise taxes during a weak economy.  They say this despite the GOP holding on to the House of Representatives, which the punditry declare is NOT a mandate to oppose tax hikes.  Sounds like a very selective bit of whose victory equals a right to keep on doing what they are doing.

The fiscal cliff was created by the President, who never had any intention of reaching an agreement.  It was conveniently accepted by both parties a a way to put off difficult decisions.  It is at least a 50-50 chance that they will do the same thing again-agree to do nothing and extend the date from Jan 1 to July 1.

The republicans may accpts a modest increase in tax rates, as a way to get the Dems to accpet spending cuts.  It will not raise any real revenue, but it will give the Dems the class warfare victory they think they have earned.  So be it.  The electorate has decided that slow economic growth is a fair price to pay to keep its rock star in the oval office.  Republicans should hold to their principlas though, and not allow the President to bully them into submission.

One message from the election was this:  It wasn't a mistake the first time.  We really want Obama.  Really.   Now go back to Washington, suck it up and get the job done this time.   Or we can send a much stronger message in two years.  Really.  We will.

Scot it is increasingly depressing to watch this floundering by the Republican Party and these so called conservatives.  We just got our hats handed to us something like 332 to 206 and we call it razor thin.  Then I sit down for laughs and watch FOX News and what do I see but a bunch of folks living a delusion.  Crushed in the voting by women, minorities, gays and any other group that wasn't white and male they sit there and come up with hurricane excuses or even better pull off an O'Reilly and say the country has reached the point of all of those folks voting for Obama are takers and not givers.  Great, lose an election and then insult everyone who just voted against you.

My favorite was and I can't remember who said it, "American's can't possibly want a European style country."  Excuse me but we are and have been for years.  We've got SS, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, unemployment everything except the shorter work week and longer vacations.  It is about time real "conservatives" do what we do best, conserve that which the people have chosen and make it run efficiently and wisely.  Not long after RR the Re[publican Party took these knuckleheaded religious right types seriously, then went to bed with "libertarians" which no conservative could actually like, then had a love affair with "social conservatives, an oxymoron and now everybody hates us.  Many "conservatives" themselves left the Party in disgust and simply had their name stolen by these groups.

You look at the comment section and these folks have no idea what a conservative is.  They think its Rush Limbaugh.  The fight in the party has already started and a few real "conservatives" are talking sense but then get yelled at by these crazies, no we've got to go further right on abortion on this or that, issues that have nothing to do with conservatism.  This is a nighmare scenario for the Party and if the crazies gain complete control the number of unaffliated voters will explode as the Party collapses.  We need a two party system but both parties need to be sane.  Right now conservatism doesn't have a real home.

The WSJ is owned by Newscorp.  Newscorp is owned by Rupert Murdock, who owns Fox News.  The WSJ is a joke, just like Fox News.

"salemreader"  I was at one level attracted to conservatism long ago by Goldwater who laid down a simple tenent regarding "conservatism",

"The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process."

Does that look like today's Republican Party, not even close.  These folks hated Obama so much they couldn't even lay out a logical argument with which to oppose him.  It was pathetic. 

Attaturk: I have to say, as someone who admires many classical conservatives, I find the state of today's GOP v. depressing. It has become untethered from factual analysis (of which more next week). I have to say, though I know conservatives all think it's great to have Fox News as a media platform, I think it has had a counterproductive side effect of dumbing down the movement's thought leaders. I mean, it's a long, long way from William F. Buckley to Sean Hannity ... JKupie: Agreed on the WSJ. A great newspaper with an egregiously counter-factual editorial page.

"A bad case of political denial is infecting conservatives nationwide."

Well, no, I would say it is infecting partisan Republicans. You've laid claim to fiscal conservatism yourself, Scot, do you feel afflicted? Neither do I. Although Hanson is correct about the divisions that still exist, a returning incumbent President can afford to compromise or grandstand, depending on the issue, since he doesn't have to sell that point for re-election, while the Senators and especially the Representatives do have to worry about that. While I am concerned about the fiscal cliff whereat we totter, perhaps it is also time to re-evaluate whether or not this nation's best interests are served by a political process where re-election is job one. Personally I would favor a significant Constitutional reform to set a reasonable length of time for a term in office and eliminate incumbency.

Scot, After re-reading your post I noted even you called those folks out there watching FOX "conservatives".  I don't think they are.  Perhaps a few but who really thinks of Coulter as "conservative".  This love affair with Ayn Rand by so many. That's not conservative, it's radical.  For me the problem is the name "conservative" got hijacked.  I'm not sure real "conservatives" can ever get it back.

<<I'm posting this up here again because it was buried in the replies below.>>  Hey, everyone!  I know we've found "system" to be difficult to take, and I agree that it feels good to say "nyah, nyah", but let's do what we can to be gracious.  In fact, it's the only thing I can think of we can do that might make a difference in his provocation-- that is, if we don't react, he won't goad.  Now that we've won in the voting booths, lets win on the comment board, too.  As Abraham Lincoln said, "With malice toward none..."    Reasonable refutation has been useless, payback in kind can only be petty, so maybe we can all try unresponsiveness.  I suggest we just don't reply to any of his comments.  (This is the last reply to him that you'll see from me.)  Peace, all!

Last night Charlie Rose had a pre-election tape where panel members expressed their doubts that Obama could 'handle' the 'fiscal - cliff' looming for the "next president."  Why did Charie Rose wait until after the election to show this tape?

The discussion was prior to 11/6/2012, and discussion was around the dire straights of the U.S. future and the plunging U.S. economy???!!!~

Panel members expressed their concerns that Obama lacked skills and leadership to deal with it!

Canta: Here, you lapse into the paranoid worldview of certain other posters here. You really there Charlie Rose held back a chattering class panel on Obama to influence the election?

System is having a great day!  Lighting you guys up!  Lets all hope to see some good compromise in the next few weeks before a problem arises.  Winning the election doesnt make him right on the issues or excuse the press, particularly the globe, for the way they handled the campaign.  Scot is at least just an Oped buy.  Sure he is delusional most of the time, but I do enjoy his articles.  A US ambassador died and no one seems to be asking what happened.  The president lied and CBS had proof and just sat on it.   Would Mitt have gotten the same treatment???  All you honest democrats should ask yourselves that.  Not a huge supporter of Romney but do think he would have made a good President because of his ability to work with others.  I hope the President can learn that is his biggest problem and start the ball rolling on all the work thats needs to get done.  Both side should be fighting to lead the way on a multitude of issues.  Lets hope the Globe can now get back to reporting and let us know who is trying and who is not.

The Globe and the mainstream medias bias is the most disappointing of all.  We all know what Scot is about, and his beliefs are fine.  But the paper shouldnt have the open Bias that he shares.  Im sure now that the election is over we can have a good period of Reporting. 

Atta--I am liberal/conservative based on the issue.  I dont just follow along with the party.  For example I have no problem with the US dropping billons on Green energy.  I think its where we need to go as a county and a world.  Im also for not drilling more in the US.  That would make me liberal to many, I guess. 

Even with the loss they think they won.

Scot--one risk with this piece is that it starts with a long scientific word ending in "logical", so a certain portion of the political spectrum may take issue with it.

Scot, it is so amazing to hear you declare that Fox News has a problem with the truth.  Your media, has a problem with reporting anything that damages their preferred candidate.  How many stories on the Benghazi attacks have been done in the Globe, Newsweek, the NY Times?  Hardly any.  Fox has covered this, and to some extent, The washington Post.  But CBS News sat on footage in which Romney was proved correct, in the debate which was joined by candy Crowley.  How can you declare with a straight face that the media (save for Fox) is objective?

I worry far more about the liberal media, which has zero credibility.  Sean Hannitt is very partisan, but it is his job to be a commentator.  The same bias exhibited by Hannity is standard among the liberal media names, who are unapologetic in their support for Obama.

You got what you wanted, pal. Let's see how you like it.

Richmond: Well, I have read quite a few in the NYT, the Washington Post, WSJ, LA Tmes, &tc, some of which we have run (we don't have our own international team any longer). Now, what we haven't run and, to the best of my knowledge, no one else in the credible media has, is Fox's anonymously sourced (apparently single anonymous source as well, at least on the key allegation) story alleging people stood by and did nothing during the attack, despite calls for help. It's instructive that the CIA, headed by Gen. Petraeus, has said that's not so. I know that conservative partisans want to make this into a scandal and coverup, but Richmond, if you want the real reason that the credible media hasn't reported it that way, well, apply Occam's Razor. Hint: It's the same reason that, after checking it out during the campaign, the credible media didn't cover the birther allegations. I know that proved frustrating to poor Mr. Trump, but some of us live in the real, evidence-based world.