Net Neutrality. Right out of the FDR regulatory playbook.

Opinion: The Case Against Net Neutrality

11/11/2014 2:50PM     

American Enterprise Institute Scholar Bret Swanson explains why imposing 1930s-era telephone regulations on Internet broadband providers would be a historic mistake.

 http://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-the-case-against-net-neutrality/040E9501-8673-457C-AA20-7A6EC2EF53E3.html

 

 "During the President’s official visit to China today, the White House issued a statement from the President saying that he supports government regulation of the Internet by reclassifying broadband under Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1934.  This announcement follows on the heels of the ITU Plenipotentiary meeting, where Chinese member Houlin Zhao has been elected the new Secretary.  This statement is not only a terrible message for the US, but for the rest of world. Indeed, foreign authoritarian governments have been looking for justification to monitor networks and users under the guise of net neutrality and the “Open Internet.” Obama’s announcement could not be a better present to the leaders of China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia."

 

" Net neutrality would allow the government to determine how a scarce resource is allocated. "

 

 http://www.techpolicydaily.com/internet/eisenach-statement-white-house-intervention-fccs-open-internet-proceeding/

 

 

AEI scholars’ statements on White House intervention in the FCC’s Open Internet proceeding

by: The Editors
November 10, 2014 10:14 am

Communications

Internet

ObamaOpenInternet by Shutterstock

tags: FCC, net neutrality, Title II

The Obama Administration just announced its support for Title II reclassification of the Internet. While President Obama acknowledged the independence of the FCC in his controversial statement, his call for reclassification is a noteworthy intervention in ongoing rulemaking procedures. AEI’s scholars share their thoughts on the announcement’s implications for ISPs and consumers alike.
Jeffrey Eisenach:

The Federal Communications Commission was created to be an independent regulatory agency, above and beyond the reach of crass politics. The White House’s decision to intervene in an ongoing rulemaking makes a mockery of any sense of independence or impartiality. A legitimate case can be made that a decision as large, and as lacking in statutory basis, as the FCC’s intervention in the net neutrality matter is correctly a matter for politicians, not bureaucrats.   To the extent that is the case, however, there is only one legitimate route, and it starts in the Congress, not the White House. If the FCC bows to pressure from the White House on this issue, the agency’s reputation will suffer a terrible stain.

Bret Swanson:

The Internet in the US has thrived almost beyond imagination under a multi-decade, bipartisan stance of policy restraint. Imposing Title II telephone regulations on the wildly successful US Internet would be a historic economic blunder.

Roslyn Layton:

During the President’s official visit to China today, the White House issued a statement from the President saying that he supports government regulation of the Internet by reclassifying broadband under Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1934.  This announcement follows on the heels of the ITU Plenipotentiary meeting, where Chinese member Houlin Zhao has been elected the new Secretary.  This statement is not only a terrible message for the US, but for the rest of world. Indeed, foreign authoritarian governments have been looking for justification to monitor networks and users under the guise of net neutrality and the “Open Internet.” Obama’s announcement could not be a better present to the leaders of China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Read my articles about this here and here.

Daniel Lyons:

Title II reclassification would impose upon a vibrant Internet a legal regime designed in the 1930s to control the old AT&T monopoly. Indeed, the proposed ban on paid prioritization is more stringent than the obligations we once shackled on Ma Bell. The White House’s proposal to homogenize broadband Internet access is inconsistent with an increasingly diverse marketplace and would deprive Americans of countless innovative business models currently proliferating worldwide. Individualized bargaining allows for experimentation and testing of potentially more efficient business models that could get consumers the content and services that they need better than existing practices. Broadband policies turn upon a host of highly technical issues, in both fixed and wireless markets, that cannot be reduced to political sound bytes. This is why these policy decisions are firmly vested in the hands of an independent agency with the technical expertise to understand the nuances of these policies, insulated from the very political pressure that the White House is attempting to bring to bear on the Commission. There are numerous potentially pro-consumer alternatives to one-size-fits-all broadband access. Whatever rules the Commission ultimately adopts should allow for innovation that provides consumers with the services they desire online, wherever that innovation occurs in the Internet ecosystem.

Richard Bennett:

Overall broadband quality in the United States is better than broadband quality in all comparable nations thanks to the facilities-based competition model that we’ve followed since the Clinton Administration. President Obama’s desire to abandon our home-grown policy framework in favor of the approach used in the worst-performing nations such as Italy and France amounts to snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory and compromises the FCC’s legal independence. It’s unfortunate that the White House refuses to put the well-being of the American people above the wishes of misguided and poorly informed activists.

Mark Jamison:

The Administration’s announcing how it wants the Federal Communications Commission to decide on Title II regulation of the Internet does not bode well for broadband in the US. The FCC is an independent agency for a reason, namely to keep politics at arm’s length from critical infrastructure investment. Studies over the past 20 years have confirmed what Congress knew 80 years ago when it developed the agency: Politicians like to expropriate the value of infrastructure for their own political ends, and this hurts customers by scaring off investment. An independent agency is intended to stand between politics and investment by regulating under the law through a fact-oriented, transparent process. Whether the Internet has utility and common carriage features that merit Title II treatment is an issue for Congress or for the FCC, deciding under its statutory authority and subject to judicial review.

For more from our scholars on Title II and net neutrality, see our archives here and here.

- See more at: http://www.techpolicydaily.com/internet/eisenach-statement-white-house-intervention-fccs-open-internet-proceeding/#sthash.HtNhaXdM.dpuf

 

 

AEI scholars’ statements on White House intervention in the FCC’s Open Internet proceeding

by: The Editors
November 10, 2014 10:14 am

Communications

Internet

ObamaOpenInternet by Shutterstock

tags: FCC, net neutrality, Title II

The Obama Administration just announced its support for Title II reclassification of the Internet. While President Obama acknowledged the independence of the FCC in his controversial statement, his call for reclassification is a noteworthy intervention in ongoing rulemaking procedures. AEI’s scholars share their thoughts on the announcement’s implications for ISPs and consumers alike.
Jeffrey Eisenach:

The Federal Communications Commission was created to be an independent regulatory agency, above and beyond the reach of crass politics. The White House’s decision to intervene in an ongoing rulemaking makes a mockery of any sense of independence or impartiality. A legitimate case can be made that a decision as large, and as lacking in statutory basis, as the FCC’s intervention in the net neutrality matter is correctly a matter for politicians, not bureaucrats.   To the extent that is the case, however, there is only one legitimate route, and it starts in the Congress, not the White House. If the FCC bows to pressure from the White House on this issue, the agency’s reputation will suffer a terrible stain.

Bret Swanson:

The Internet in the US has thrived almost beyond imagination under a multi-decade, bipartisan stance of policy restraint. Imposing Title II telephone regulations on the wildly successful US Internet would be a historic economic blunder.

Roslyn Layton:

During the President’s official visit to China today, the White House issued a statement from the President saying that he supports government regulation of the Internet by reclassifying broadband under Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1934.  This announcement follows on the heels of the ITU Plenipotentiary meeting, where Chinese member Houlin Zhao has been elected the new Secretary.  This statement is not only a terrible message for the US, but for the rest of world. Indeed, foreign authoritarian governments have been looking for justification to monitor networks and users under the guise of net neutrality and the “Open Internet.” Obama’s announcement could not be a better present to the leaders of China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Read my articles about this here and here.

Daniel Lyons:

Title II reclassification would impose upon a vibrant Internet a legal regime designed in the 1930s to control the old AT&T monopoly. Indeed, the proposed ban on paid prioritization is more stringent than the obligations we once shackled on Ma Bell. The White House’s proposal to homogenize broadband Internet access is inconsistent with an increasingly diverse marketplace and would deprive Americans of countless innovative business models currently proliferating worldwide. Individualized bargaining allows for experimentation and testing of potentially more efficient business models that could get consumers the content and services that they need better than existing practices. Broadband policies turn upon a host of highly technical issues, in both fixed and wireless markets, that cannot be reduced to political sound bytes. This is why these policy decisions are firmly vested in the hands of an independent agency with the technical expertise to understand the nuances of these policies, insulated from the very political pressure that the White House is attempting to bring to bear on the Commission. There are numerous potentially pro-consumer alternatives to one-size-fits-all broadband access. Whatever rules the Commission ultimately adopts should allow for innovation that provides consumers with the services they desire online, wherever that innovation occurs in the Internet ecosystem.

Richard Bennett:

Overall broadband quality in the United States is better than broadband quality in all comparable nations thanks to the facilities-based competition model that we’ve followed since the Clinton Administration. President Obama’s desire to abandon our home-grown policy framework in favor of the approach used in the worst-performing nations such as Italy and France amounts to snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory and compromises the FCC’s legal independence. It’s unfortunate that the White House refuses to put the well-being of the American people above the wishes of misguided and poorly informed activists.

Mark Jamison:

The Administration’s announcing how it wants the Federal Communications Commission to decide on Title II regulation of the Internet does not bode well for broadband in the US. The FCC is an independent agency for a reason, namely to keep politics at arm’s length from critical infrastructure investment. Studies over the past 20 years have confirmed what Congress knew 80 years ago when it developed the agency: Politicians like to expropriate the value of infrastructure for their own political ends, and this hurts customers by scaring off investment. An independent agency is intended to stand between politics and investment by regulating under the law through a fact-oriented, transparent process. Whether the Internet has utility and common carriage features that merit Title II treatment is an issue for Congress or for the FCC, deciding under its statutory authority and subject to judicial review.

For more from our scholars on Title II and net neutrality, see our archives here and here.

- See more at: http://www.techpolicydaily.com/internet/eisenach-statement-white-house-intervention-fccs-open-internet-proceeding/#sthash.HtNhaXdM.dpuf

 

 

Just answer the questions please....

We have a new left/right struggle that is about to commence... The nomination and confirmation of Loretta Lynch as Attorney General.  The left, particularly those who base suitability almost exclusively on race, color or sex have given her high marks and roll their eyes at the prospect of any rejection of her credentials, abilities and ultimately her approval

I think that those running her confirmation hearings should only ask five questions...  An answer to the negative for any one of them without a really substantive answer should set up an automatic rejection.

Would You, based on publically available information, present these cases to a grand jury.

• Fast -n- Furious.  (Gun running, obstruction of justice, money laundering and criminal conspiracy for starters.)

• IRS Targeting, most-specifically the apparent intentional obstruction of discovery (that's obstruction of justice, among other things.)

• The apparent and intentional law-breaking at The Fed, evidenced by Bernanke's use of pseudonyms during his bailout discussions and the clear warning by a Fed counsel member that what he was doing was probably illegal.

• The apparent and intentional law-breaking by virtually all major US banks during that same time period.

• The apparent and intentional law-breaking by HFT traders from roughly that time period to today, inclusive.

Of course taking something to a grand jury does not guarantee an incitement but all of these are serious crimes that have cost lives, livelihoods, trillions in savings and purchasing power, as well as investments which were destine to fail because of some of the above.

The return to law and order is an imperative and a good start is with an attorney general who actually believes in enforcing the law for everyone and not just the political agenda of the person who nominated you...

Liberal Compassion on Trial

Review: William Voegeli’s ‘The Pity Party’

AP

BY: Brent Scher Follow @brentscher 
November 8, 2014 5:00 am

Liberals enjoy pointing out that, unlike their mean-spirited and heartless conservative counterparts, they actually care about other people. The New York Times’ Paul Krugman, for one, writes that conservatives are “infected” with a “pathological mean-spiritedness” and want to “give you an extra kick” when you’re down on your luck. President Barack Obama, on the other hand, says that “kindness covers all of my political beliefs.”

In Pity Party: A Mean-Spirited Diatribe Against Liberal Compassion, William Voegeli takes a careful look at the principles of care and kindness that are at the heart of modern liberalism’s self-conception. In a straightforward style, he picks apart the relationship between liberals and empathy.

Voegeli explains the dangers of liberals’ insistence on being on the “right side of history.” He gives examples of failed policies born out of the liberal need to feel like they are doing something for those with whom they empathize. One of the most persuasive examples Voegeli presents is the $180 billion Head Start program, the federally funded pre-school program designed to prepare children from impoverished families for elementary school.

Funding has grown for the program over the 50 years since its inception, largely because liberals praise its success. Unfortunately, the only known success the program has had is making liberals feel good about themselves. Voegeli shows persuasively that Head Start has been an ineffective program, and that children who have gone through it end up no better than children in similar socio-economic situations that were without Head Start.

Obama himself admitted that until 2011, Head Start has never actually had its success demonstrated. For “the first time in history … Head Start programs will be truly held accountable for performance in the classroom,” he said. Then, during the same speech, he lauded the program as a “outstanding program and a critical investment.”

This is the measure of success determined by liberal compassion. Voegeli explains that liberals do not care much about whether their programs work. They care that they are making an attempt to diminish suffering felt by less fortunate members of society, no matter whether the attempt actually helps.

The liberal belief that it would be better to try and fail to alleviate suffering than to do nothing at all can be traced back at least to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. “If [a method] fails, admit it frankly and try another,” said Roosevelt in 1932. “But above all, try something.”

Roosevelt’s words are embodied by the modern liberal do-something complex. Following the horrific Newtown shooting, liberals demanded strident new gun laws, even as they conceded that those laws would have done nothing to prevent the horrific shootings in question. When proposed gun legislation failed, Obama stood in front of the White House, flanked by families from Newtown, andsaid it was “shameful day in Washington.”

Voegeli also discusses Obamacare. He notes that liberal response to the botched implementation of its healthcare overhaul was principally concerned with how the failed roll-out might sour Americans on further liberal reforms. The New Republic’s Franklin Foer panicked that the Obamacare disaster could erode “the public’s willingness to give liberalism another shot.”

The arguments for Obamacare’s success are rooted in liberal compassion. Clearly, nobody is celebrating the horrendous Obamacare exchanges or the $300 billion the law will add to the federal deficit. The celebration from liberals comes from noting that the percentage of uninsured individuals in impoverished minority populations has decreased, regardless of the much more negative bigger picture.

The main takeaway from Voegeli’s not-so-mean-spirited diatribe is that liberal compassion is bunk.

If the concern for those with whom liberals empathize were real, it would be alarming to liberals that their welfare programs are not working. But an honest look by liberals at the effectiveness of the programs they favor would ruin their ability to feel like good people—and in the end, that’s what really matters.

 http://freebeacon.com/culture/liberal-compassion-on-trial/

Feds to Back Risky Home Loans Again

Critics warn that Fannie and Freddie are setting up housing market for repeat of 2008 crisis

AP

BY: Daniel Wiser Follow @TheWiserChoice 
November 10, 2014 5:00 am

Critics warn that government agencies are making the same mistakes that led to the economic downturn of 2008.

Federal agencies have made a series of recent moves that could precipitate another housing crisis similar to the one in 2008, experts say, again threatening the stability of the entire U.S. economy.

Housing regulators and other agencies have announced rulings and proposals in recent weeks that would lower credit and lending standards for home mortgages. Subprime or low-quality mortgages that defaulted in 2008—a majority of which were backed by the government housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—were a significant contributor to the economic downturn.

Additionally, Fannie and Freddie currently hand over most of their earnings to the Treasury Department under changes made by the agency in 2012. That means that as home loans become more risky, the companies known as government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) would have no capital buffer to absorb losses. Taxpayers could again be called upon to rescue them in the event of another economic shock.

Treasury provided $188 billion during the 2008 crisis to save Fannie and Freddie, which were seized by the government and placed in “conservatorship” by the newly established Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA).

“When those two firms fail—as they will, especially when they don’t have any capital—the result will be the taxpayer will have to pick up the bill again,” said Peter Wallison, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and former general counsel of Treasury during the Ronald Reagan administration, in an interview.

“The lessons of the financial crisis have not been learned,” he added.

FHFA Director Mel Watt said last month that Fannie and Freddie would soon begin to guarantee loans with down payments as low as 3 percent, though the final details of that plan have yet to be released. The two companies operate by buying loans from lenders, selling those loans in mortgage-backed securities, and then guaranteeing payment to investors if the loans default.

Fannie and Freddie purchased loans with little or no down payments before 2008, but had largely stopped doing so in recent years.

Watt also expressed concerns that lenders had restricted loans to borrowers with lower incomes or credit scores out of concern that Fannie and Freddie would force them to buy back the loans if they defaulted. He outlined instances where lenders would not have to repurchase the loans, and encouraged them to loosen up lending standards.

On Friday, Watt sought to assuage concerns that lower down payments would result in more defaults. Borrowers will still need to have “compensating factors” such as strong credit records or lower debt-to-income (DTI) ratios, he said, and the loans will require a form of “credit enhancement” such as private mortgage insurance.

“There are creditworthy borrowers in today’s market who have the income to afford monthly mortgage payments but do not have the money to make a large down payment and pay closing costs,” he said in prepared remarks at the National Association of Realtors Conference & Expo. “Purchase guidelines that allow for 3 percent down payments will provide an opportunity for access to credit for some of these borrowers.”

Wallison said he was skeptical that private mortgage insurance firms would accept mortgages with the low down payments, adding that the risk would eventually go back to Fannie and Freddie or the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). The loans could actually be more expensive with the addition of mortgage insurance premiums.

“The right conclusion would be to have a good solid down payment and good credit score and the borrower gets a much less expensive mortgage,” he said.

Six federal agencies, including the FHFA, also announced last month that while sellers of some asset-backed securities must retain at least five percent of the credit risk of the assets, other securities backed by “qualified residential mortgages” (QRMs) are exempt from the risk retention requirement. The new criteria for “prime” or traditional mortgages requires borrowers to document their debt and income and meet a DTI benchmark of 43 percent or less.

However, the new rule dropped the tougher credit and lending requirements of the initial proposal in April 2011—which included a down payment of at least 20 percent and a DTI ratio of 36 percent or less. Wallison said the rule “completely destroyed” the risk retention goal of the Dodd-Frank Act that was supposed to make mortgage-backed securities less risky. Those securities were a principal cause of the financial crisis.

Wallison said he hopes a new Congress, now led by Republicans in both chambers, will take action to reduce government involvement in the housing market. As long as Fannie and Freddie dominatethe purchasing of home loans, a coalition of realtors, homebuilders, low-income housing advocates, and lenders will push for lower lending standards that inject risk into the market, he argued.

“Once you turn it over to the government, all of the tendencies are to reduce underwriting standards until the result is a series of failures and defaults that caused the kind of problems we had in 2008,” he said.

Something medical to think about

I came across this http://www.proliability.com/tabid/468/entryid/326/slim-chance-texas-hospital-will-be-sued-for-poor-handling-of-ebola.aspx today while having some coffee before work. This upcoming week's assignments deal with malpractice and I thought this story was kind of interesting. Texas, of course, is one of the darling states where conservative ideas reign and when it comes to healthcare reform, it seems that tort reform is something that conservatives believe will solve many problems. This story is the mirror image of the nonsense cases that conservatives LOVE to find to fling against the wall. There is nothing funny about this, but it seems very ironic that as Ebola became an issue in this past election, we have a situation here where clear incompetence will likely not be punished.

I have mixed feelings about this. I've read about plenty of lawsuits wherein a lawyer casts a wide net and drags in countless people who really have nothing to do with a particular situation in order to shake out as much reward as possible. If possible, I certainly would like to see a limit on the ability to drag in people who really have nothing to do with the case. On the other hand, we have a situation like this one where, from the outside, the incompetence appears pretty staggering. Thoughts?

Photo's still coming in from Tuesday's Mid-term elections

House of Representatives — 2008

Image source: Screen grab of New York Times map

House of Representatives — 2014

Image source: National Journal

Liberals explode with racial hate after Tim Scott wins Senate race in S.C.

November 4, 2014 8:51 PM MST

Tim Scott subject to racial slurs after election victory.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

During the election, liberal Democrats used the race card in an attempt to label all Republicans as racist. But when Tim Scott won his Senate race in South Carolina, liberals on Twitter went ballistic, Twitchy said Tuesday, hurling racial slurs against Scott, even though he has the honor of being the first African-American elected to the Senate from that state and the first elected to a statewide office since Reconstruction.
"Tim Scott is a d**n Uncle Tom," one sore loser said on Twitter. "Yeah Tim Scott is the biggest Uncle Tom (sic)," another person said.
"You are not the first Uncle Tom," added another Twitter user. "Clarence Thomas wins."
"Nikki Haley wins in South Carolina," said a very angry Twitter critic. "Tim Scott Uncle Tom (expletive deleted) is back. Lindsey Graham too. UGH. I hate the world."
"Bitter liberal racism," Twitchy said. "It’s a recurring theme of the night."
Scott was first appointed to the Senate by Gov. Nikki Haley in December 2012 when Jim DeMint retired to head up the conservative Heritage Foundation. At the time, NBC played the race card while liberals online hurled racist epithets.
He served in the House from 2011-2013 and was part of the influential House Rules Committee. Prior to that, he served on the Charleston County Council for 13 years and spent two years in the South Carolina House of Representatives.
After defeating Democrat Joyce Dickerson on Tuesday, Scott became the first black senator to be elected by popular vote in the South, the Huffington Post said. He is also the first to be elected to both the House and the Senate. The victory also comes on the heels of claims by Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., that southerners are racist and sexist. No doubt, if Scott were a Democrat, the critics on Twitter would be singing a much different tune.
The hypocrisy shown by leftists is nothing new. As we have reported time and again, conservative blacks are often targeted with racial hate from those who claim Republicans are racist.

America's Political Schizophrenia

According to Wiki: Schizophrenia (/ˌskɪtsɵˈfrɛniə/ or /ˌskɪtsɵˈfriːniə/) is a mental disorder often characterized by abnormal social behavior and failure to recognize what is real. Common symptoms include false beliefs, unclear or confused thinking, auditory hallucinations, reduced social engagement and emotional expression, and inactivity. Diagnosis is based on observed behavior and the person's reported experiences.

I don't think there is a better description of American voters than this definition here. Note, I did not say all Americans, just those who vote. When the Republicans were slaughtered in the Bush mid terms, (lost 6 senate and 30 house seats) I rambled here or elsewhere that Democrats would be making a huge mistake if they believed that they had just received a mandate for anything other than NOT BEING BUSH. Pretty much the entire country, including conservatives, were dissatisfied with Bush despite the fact they pretty much felt the same way two years prior and reelected him anyway. Voter turnout explains some of this, but as the definition above, IMO, tells the real story. 

Obama is not popular and his 46% approval rating shows that. There is reason for all to find some dissatisfaction with him and that's fair enough. But here is where the unicorn and fairy stuff starts. American's largely have their heads up their ass when it comes to understanding how legislation comes about and they have their heads even further up their ass when it comes to realizing that their personal beliefs are not reflected by the party they frequently vote for. While 52% disapproved of Obama, 80% were unhappy with congress, yet, they gave them a majority in both houses even when polling suggested that quite a few senate races were actually close. Kansas may be one of the most Schizo states out there that has rewarded both an idiot governor who destroyed their finances with tax cuts and an equally clueless senator. It doesn't seem to me that we are really voting for performance here. At the least, seemingly not for performance that honestly makes a damn bit of difference in the life of the voter. 

So while 80% of voters are displeased with congress, the doubled down to give Republicans and every bigger majority. In several states where a Republican senator or congressman won, there were also ballots to increase minimum wage, legalize pot and also decide if a fetus should have the rights of a born human being. Generally, voters responded one way toward the issues, and then elected a Republican anyway who clearly was opposite them on the issues. Democrats ran away from Obama at a time when things have improved substantially for Americans after a horrible economic meltdown, and Republicans have regained control of both houses for literally doing nothing. I realize, that some purists here believe that a broken government is best. Setting that aside, I remain baffled that 80% of voters could be displeased with congress but not displeased with the party that controls it. 

Like the Republicans in 06, I'm sure we will see endless babble about what this means. Plenty will thump their chests that Republicans have a mandate to stop Obama from............ what i'm not sure. Stop him from not signing the legislation that was never presented to him? Life will go on, little will change. Reince punk ass is already proclaiming they will destroy Obama, Ted Cruz is already bringing up Benghazi and McConnell is trying to say they will work together. Life goes on for our schizophrenia. 

Being Blunt.......

 

 First off, you know we’re not afraid to be blunt. So we’ll just come out and say it: last night was rough. We registered more voters, and made more phone calls, and knocked on more doors than ever before. But we were still left with heartbreaking losses.

 

Although make no mistake: last night’s results were no accident. It was the result of Republicans’ cynical political strategy that put hurting President Obama before helping the American people. The President put it best just a few months ago:

 

There has been a certain cynical genius to what some of these folks have done in Washington. What they’ve realized is, if we don’t get anything done, then people are going to get cynical about government and its possibilities of doing good for everybody. And since they don’t believe in government, that’s a pretty good thing.

 

 And the more cynical people get, the less they vote. And if turnout is low and people don’t vote, that pretty much benefits those who benefit from the status quo.

 

 -- President Barack Obama (August 29, 2014)

In other words, the Republicans broke Washington. Then, they spent millions of dollars of secret money running against a broken Washington.

 So yeah, last night was rough. It’s infuriating that Republicans’ cynical strategy worked. But we refuse to give in to them. We refuse to give in to the cynicism. As President Obama always says, “hope is a better choice.”

 

And believe it or not, there were some bright spots last night that give us hope. Here are just a few examples:

 

FLORIDA

 

Republican Congressman Steve Southerland is the poster-child for Republicans’ anti-woman agenda.

 He opposed the Violence Against Women Act. He voted to defund Planned Parenthood. He even held an all-male fundraiser where the invite actually said, “Tell the Misses not to wait up […] because the after dinner whiskey and cigars will be smooth & the issues to discuss are many.”

 

WHAT YOU MADE POSSIBLE: We registered 9,958 new Democratic voters in the district.

 For the first time in our history, we supplemented our field program with a voter registration program. In addition, our larger, more targeted field program knocked on 75,000 doors.

 

THE RESULT: We defeated Rep. Southerland by 2,193 votes.

 We’re so glad you gave us the chance to execute that voter registration program -- it made all the difference. And we’re so happy to welcome CongressWOMAN-elect Gwen Graham.

 

NEBRASKA

 

Republican Congressman Lee Terry voted to shut down the government.

 And if that wasn’t bad enough, when Congressman Terry wouldn’t give up his government paycheck during the shutdown, he replied, “Dang straight… I've got a nice house and a kid in college.”

 

WHAT YOU MADE POSSIBLE: We launched a massive early vote program that gave Democrats a 5,262 vote advantage.

 When we told you we could beat Boehner’s Republicans -- even in deep-red states, we weren’t kidding. We personally reached out to nearly 40,000 voters on the ground. And when the Republicans ran an attack that was called “unspeakably racist,” we got on the air and fought back.

 

THE RESULT: We defeated Rep. Terry by 4,132 votes.

 Because of the work you made possible, Congressman Terry is going to have a lot more time to spend in that “nice house” of his.

 

ARIZONA

 

Arizona House Speaker Andy Tobin was a chief architect of SB 1062, better known as the “No Gays Allowed” bill.

 Under Tobin’s bill, businesses could deny service to customers simply because they’re gay.

 

WHAT YOU MADE POSSIBLE: We invested in community organizers early and often.

 We knew defeating Tobin was going to be tough, so we made a huge investment on the ground. We put field staffers on the ground earlier than ever before. In particular, we focused on organizing tribal communities.

 

THE RESULT: We defeated Speaker Tobin by 9,346 votes.

 None of this would have been possible without your support. You broke every grassroots fundraising record we have -- and then some. And each one of those $5 and $50 donations allowed us to pull off these upsets -- even in a tough year.

 

So now the question is: what’s next?

 

 Let’s start with the obvious: Republicans have won control of Congress -- so now they have no excuses. They can’t just sit back and blame Democrats like President Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi. They’ll have to stand up and try to convince people that the Republican agenda is better than the Democratic agenda.

 

 That’s a fight we’re looking forward to.