« Slurpeepaloza Gloating | Main | My, How Things Change... »

The American people stood athwart history and yelled, "Stop!"

wallpaper-elephant-sm - Copy.jpg

Well, the Democrats can't say we didn't warn them. They ignored their constituents' wishes and paid the price. And it's not like the voters didn't make their opinions known, either. Many of them took time off from work and away from their families to attend town hall meetings or Tea Party rallies to make sure their Senators and Congressmen and women got the message that they did not want the Democrats' big spending, big deficit, and freedom limiting nanny-state agenda.

But the Democrats were unmoved. They placed the priorities of the ruling class above the priorities of the American people. The fed the greed of the corrupt union machine instead of listening to the people for whom they were elected to serve. They placed the needs of the various Democratic interest groups above the needs of the people who counted the most: their constituents. With the voters relegated to second class status, the Democrats shoved their policies right down their constituents' throats.

Last night, the Democratic Party and Barack Obama paid the piper. The Democrats lost control of the House and had their majority in the Senate cut down to a slim margin. The Democrats' loses were so bad Jake Tapper tweeted "Top Dem emails me: 'bloodbath.'"

Here's the rundown from Fox News:

Republicans thundered into the majority in the House of Representatives Tuesday night, making historic gains by a proportion not seen in more than 70 years.

The party so far has won more than 60 seats, with about 65 net gains projected by the time all ballots are counted -- far more than the party needed to seize the majority. Democrats, with the help of a victory by Majority Leader Harry Reid, held the Senate by a narrow margin but suffered several big losses in an election that just about put Republicans on equal footing with the president's party.

House Republican Leader John Boehner, speaking briefly to reporters Wednesday morning alongside his deputy, Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., claimed a "mandate" to cut the size of government and urged President Obama to respect the will of the voters and "change course."

He said the American people want a climate that will promote job growth as well as a more accountable, smaller federal government. He also said his party needs to "lay the groundwork" for repealing the "monstrosity" health care law, with the eventual goal of replacing it -- an unlikely prospect as long as Obama is in the White House.

"It's pretty clear that the Obama-Pelosi agenda's being rejected by the American people," Boehner said. "I think it's a mandate for Washington to reduce the size of government."


The Republicans didn't just win a big on the national level, either. Their wins reverberated deep down through the states, as well. Take my state of Michigan, for example. Jennifer Granholm's eight years as governor combined with Obama's two years as president did so much damage to the state's economy and angered so many people that the voters gave the Republicans control of all branches of state government. Rick Snyder is our new governor-elect. Ruth Johnson is our new secretary of state. Bill Schuette is now attorney general. The House's Democrat majority flipped overnight to a Republican majority to join the Senate's existing Republican majority. Finally, Michigan's State Supreme Court now is a 4-3 conservative majority. Even the Board of Regents races for the University of Michigan and Michigan State University and the Board of Governors race for Wayne State University all went to Republicans, too.

And many more states all over the country experienced similar sweeping Republican victories. Erick Erickson provides the details in his RedState Morning Briefing:

The real story is the underreported story of the night -- the Republican pick ups at the state level.

There will be 18 states subject to reapportionment. The Republicans will control a majority of those -- at least ten and maybe a dozen or more. More significantly, a minimum of seventeen state legislative houses have flipped to the Republican Party.

The North Carolina Legislature is Republican for the first time since 1870. Yes, that is Eighteen Seventy.

The Alabama Legislature is Republican for the first time since 1876.

For those saying this is nothing because it is the South, consider these:

The entire Wisconsin and New Hampshire legislatures have flipped to the GOP by wide margins.

The State Houses in Indiana, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Iowa, Montana, and Colorado flipped to the GOP.

The Maine and Minnesota Senates flipped to the GOP.

The Texas and Tennessee Houses went from virtually tied to massive Republican gains. The gains in Texas were so big that the Republicans no longer need the Democrats to get state constitutional amendments out of the state legislature.

These gains go all the way down to the municipal level across the nation. That did not happen even in 1994.

This was a tsunami.


And thank God for that.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/40483.

Comments (26)

Barry wants to find common ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Barry wants to find common ground and compromise now. TRANSLATION: Stay in the back seat and vote my way.

Fuck you, Barry!

Great news, Kim. I've been ... (Below threshold)
Tom Blogical:

Great news, Kim. I've been out of the loop for a while, to say the very least, so it's nice to see so many gains at the state levels. Maybe the country got a clue, maybe not. We'll have to see.

"They placed the priorities... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

"They placed the priorities of the ruling class above the priorities of the American people."

Right! Because ONLY the Democrats are part of the ruling class establishment! Sure, Kim, you just keep believing that the Dems are all a bunch of political elites and the Republicans are all about "the common people." Right.

You know, I'm all for a government (composed of Republicans AND Democrats) that realizes it is supposed to work on the behalf of the priorities of ALL American people (regardless of political affiliation, etc). Instead we get two blocs of power that leave the bulk of Americans stuck somewhere in between. Year after year.

I'm glad you're so excited, Kim. Good for you. But this isn't just about "your side"; it's about all sides if you ask me. To me the whole political pendulum swing thing is just more of the same pattern, with different names and stats here and there. I remain skeptical, because I don't really see much to get excited about on any side of the spectrum.

We need less ideological cheerleaders and more practical, respectful, and thoughtful political leadership. Imagine that.

Seriously, I could care less whether the leadership comes from the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the Independents, the Green Party, or the Sloth and Indolence Party for all I care*. I would like to see us pull away from the catch-phrase style politics that has gripped the nation for a little too long...and find our way into a style of discourse and governance that realizes the government is actually for the people--and all of them at that. I won't hold my breath.

Time to move on and figure out how to pull the nation out of the economic, social, and political mess that it's in. Screw party lines. Again, I'm not going to place any bets on this happening any time soon.

Good night and buena suerte.

/rant

I like the non biased repor... (Below threshold)
914:

I like the non biased reporting we get around here. I go to bed last night and Oberstar is being called the winner with 26% precincts reporting. Been in office since the "Truman administration". In other words, way longer then I've been alive. Get up today and see him sobbing like Barrys going to be in 2012.

The common ground Barry longs for was attainable before he desecrated the economy. Now he can sit down, shut up and let the adults handle things.

"Barry wants to find common... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

"Barry wants to find common ground and compromise now."

Well, hopefully THEY ALL figure out some way to work some of their differences out, b/c I'm pretty sure that political gridlock would only makes things worse. I am not looking forward to this.

Excuse the pessimism, but right now they all seem to be full of sh*t.

Winning at the state and lo... (Below threshold)
recovered liberal democrat:

Winning at the state and local level is probably the most important thing to happen in this election, besides the majority in the House. This is where the power for the base is, in order to make a difference in the Federal elections. This gives me hope that conservatism has taken root again. This will be a huge advantage in 2012 and the liberal/statists know it, and they are afraid, very afraid.

914,Except that Ba... (Below threshold)
jim m:

914,

Except that Barry won't be crying in 2012. He will be blaming and cursing. His failure will be because of racist elements and secret foreign investments. He's never responsible for his own failures.

This election result makes it less likely, but if he thinks it at all possible he would try to declare himself the winner by fiat.

Jim m-"Except t... (Below threshold)
914:

Jim m-

"Except that Barry won't be crying in 2012. He will be blaming and cursing. His failure will be because of racist elements and secret foreign investments. He's never responsible for his own failures."


In other words Barry is the same today as yesterday and tomorrow.

I stand corrected.

Well, hopefully TH... (Below threshold)
Brett:
Well, hopefully THEY ALL figure out some way to work some of their differences out, b/c I'm pretty sure that political gridlock would only makes things worse.

Political gridlock is the best possible outcome. Get rid of Obamacare, kill the various "stimulus" packages, put the perpetrators of same on trial, and then *pray* for gridlock.

Government action isn't the solution, it's the problem.

ryana ~ Where you go astray... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:

ryana ~ Where you go astray, Grasshopper, is in the idea that a bunch of politicians of any stripe are smart enough "to pull the nation out of the economic, social, and political mess that it's in."

Government hardly ever solves any problem. It may assume it to spread the cost amongst us all, even though it was the making of a few. It may make it worse, which is the most usual outcome (and not exclusive of the rest). It may seek to monopolize it and turn it into a profit center, as with crime.

But only rarely does government solve a problem, and when it does it is most often an unforeseen consequence of some other misadventure.

Solve your own problems, m'lad - lest ye grow olde and die waiting on the government to solve them for you.

Well, hopefully TH... (Below threshold)
Eric:
Well, hopefully THEY ALL figure out some way to work some of their differences out, b/c I'm pretty sure that political gridlock would only makes things worse. I am not looking forward to this.

I'm of the philosophy that political gridlock is actually a good thing.

The founding fathers envisioned a split divided government. That is why we have 3 branches of government.

Neither party has a monopoly on good ideas. We need both parties. Single party rule from either party usually results in bad things for the country. For one it short circuits the point of the 3 branches, which is oversight between the branches.

Divided government also forces the two parties to work together. It forces compromise, which usually results in better legislation because both parties have a stake in success.

Jim Addison,"Where... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Jim Addison,

"Where you go astray, Grasshopper, is in the idea that a bunch of politicians of any stripe are smart enough 'to pull the nation out of the economic, social, and political mess that it's in.'"

Hmmm...interesting interpretation of what I wrote. What about "screw party lines" and "I think they're all full of sh*t" makes you think I have this lofty expectation about our political leaders? Some politicians work to solve problems, and some buy TV ads and make nonsensical promises to get elected. It's a mixed bag--and I will certainly agree it's filled with too many bad apples.

"Solve your own problems, m'lad - lest ye grow olde and die waiting on the government to solve them for you."

Ya, I'll just go ahead and take care of the war in Afghanistan and the problems with the international financial system this afternoon. Thanks for the standard conservative answer that is about as pie in the sky as the standard liberal answer. Complete canned response, if you ask me. Your "solve your own problems" solution may work on some levels but it certainly doesn't work on others. Through hard work, people certainly can solve a lot of their own problems. I completely agree. But what about foreign policy? What about international economic issues? What about the massive problems with our domestic economy? What about cases in which groups of people have to manage massive resource systems? What about taxation? What about our legal system? What about law enforcement? What about public infrastructure?

Government is a collection of elected representatives who deal with problems at different levels. Our governance system includes the political leaders, judicial system, law enforcement, etc. Politicians surely can't be trusted, and should not simply be allowed to run amok. But when dealing with problems and issues of a higher scale I'd be interested to see how you think a vast collection of individuals can solve them without some sort of organization or government and elected leadership.

Lots of conservatives repeat this mantra about government being the source of all problems, and then in the very next sentence express their awe of the ideas of the Founding Fathers! What do you think they created? A co-op? They framed a system of governance that divides power and provides a whole series of checks and balances. Pretty good idea. Sure, it's full of problems and needs an active, engaged populace to stay on track, but that's just the way it goes.

News: government can certainly be incredibly problematic, but then again, so can individuals and the private sector. The main issue we all need to avoid is the concentration of power in the hands of any one group.

Brett,"Government ... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Brett,

"Government action isn't the solution, it's the problem."

Ok. This is just a lame knee-jerk reaction that makes people feel good but really has no meaning. This is about as ridiculous as some liberal claiming that government can solve all problems.

Brett, you do realize that the people you just voted for ARE THE GOVERNMENT, right? If you don't think that government and political leaders need to be part of the solution, then I assume you didn't vote.

The problem is corruption. The problem is when elected leaders don't do what they're supposed to do. The problem is greed--of various stripes. The problem is when the populace gets apathetic and doesn't actively keep their leaders in check. The problem is when ANYONE gets too much power.

The problems are all across the board, and they exist at very local and individual levels just as they exist at macro levels. Some people just plain don't want to work--that's a very localized, individual problem. The politics and power plays involved in our international financial system are of a completely different order--and can't simply be solved by Joe the Plumber. Those kinds of problems will require coordinated efforts of some kind or another.

Eric,I'm ... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Eric,

I'm of the philosophy that political gridlock is actually a good thing.

The founding fathers envisioned a split divided government. That is why we have 3 branches of government.

GRIDLOCK is a good thing? Gridlock means the governance system can't actually accomplish anything. I can understand why you want to see some of the Democrats' power put in check, but hoping for gridlock is just insane.

Political gridlock is the last thing the FF wanted to create, and you should know that. There is a massive difference between a system of governance that provides checks on power and political gridlock. Gridlock means that NOTHING HAPPENS because the f-ing government is so divided. The three branches of government were not meant to STOP GOVERNANCE, they were meant to split up power and encourage more balanced governance.

Right now we're about to throw sand in the engine, and it's not going to be good. Hopefully I'm wrong.

The three br... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

The three branches of government were not meant to STOP GOVERNANCE, they were meant to split up power and encourage more balanced governance.

Right now we're about to throw sand in the engine, and it's not going to be good. Hopefully I'm wrong.

The question is, Ryan A - how much governance is enough? At what point are the people allowed to go "Okay, ENOUGH with the laws, ENOUGH with the regulations, ENOUGH with the micromanagement!"?

Should banning salt in restaraunts be a government function? How about trans-fats? How about carbon? Is it the government's place to legislate how many MPG a car should get? Or how safe it should be? If it is, then why not legislate what COLOR it should be for maximum visibility at all times?

(I'd better stop on that - might give 'em ideas... and I know the salt/fat thing is a localized phenomenon. I was using it as an example of what happens when politicians get bored.)

I think we're at a point where a full-time Congress is a problem. They have to find SOMETHING to do to justify their existance - and that is done by passing more and more legislation.

To use an academic model, it's publish or perish. Only what they publish won't end up in obscure journals - it'll affect the population of this country for decades to come.

Seriously, what really needs to be passed now (aside from a budget, that the Dems studiously avoide this year) that can't wait until, oh, mid-summer 2011?

I don't see it as throwing sand in the engine - I see it as freeing a stuck throttle plate that's been letting the engine rev to (and past) sane limits for quite a while now.

Absolute compromise comprom... (Below threshold)
ron:

Absolute compromise compromises absolutely....

Mud is mud. If you think that your going to get a clear clean drink of water mixing my clean water with democratic liberalist communistic imperialistic mud forget it. I ain't mixing my water with their mud.

No compromise from me. The truth is the truth and everything else, pigs slop around in.

JLawson,T... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

JLawson,

The question is, Ryan A - how much governance is enough? At what point are the people allowed to go "Okay, ENOUGH with the laws, ENOUGH with the regulations, ENOUGH with the micromanagement!"?

That's already a much more realistic question than what some folks have written here. The question is always about how much governance, not whether we can somehow ditch government entirely. It's all about balancing power, regulation, law, and individual freedom/choice. That's the million dollar question, and the system here in the US has done a decent job of handling that problem...although of course there are still plenty of problems.

I agree with you about the prevalence of micromanagement--and the post above this about Happy Meals is a good example of taking things too far. Government and top-down management are not, by any means, always the best answer. The political scientist Elinor Ostrom has made that point over and over when it comes to issues relating to resource management.

"Should banning salt in restaraunts be a government function? How about trans-fats? How about carbon? Is it the government's place to legislate how many MPG a car should get? Or how safe it should be?"

I think that banning salt in restaurants and regulating f-ing Happy Meals in SF is insane. But I don't think that regulating working conditions in coal mines, or the sanitary conditions of large-scale slaughterhouses, is a bad idea. I think we need some sort of regulation or coordinated agreement when there are some severe risks that aren't always apparent to consumers. As for the safety of vehicles, I think some standards and regulations are also good--but that's because I don't automatically trust the private sector to do the right thing. Again, this is about a balance of power, and regulation is one of the checks on the private sector. Personally, I think that GM and Ford and the beef industry will cut corners in the name of making a few extra bucks, so I am glad to have some standards in place.

To use an academic model, it's publish or perish. Only what they publish won't end up in obscure journals - it'll affect the population of this country for decades to come.

I think that's a pretty damn good comparison. It's all about people--on both sides--trying to justify their position and existence. And that's the problem with the current system--the whole process is geared more toward getting elected (getting tenure) than actually effectively dealing with social, political, and economic problems. But then, we all watch the dumb ads that have no content and vote for people based upon almost zero information, so we're part of the problem too.

I don't see it as throwing sand in the engine - I see it as freeing a stuck throttle plate that's been letting the engine rev to (and past) sane limits for quite a while now.

Well, hopefully your metaphor is the more accurate one. I guess I don't think that a stalemate for the next two years is necessarily good for the long haul...but I'll be glad to be wrong about that.

Dear Ron,"No compr... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Dear Ron,

"No compromise from me."

Well, you'd be better off in a dictatorship or perhaps some other authoritarian government, rather than a representative democracy like we have here in the US. A government by the people and for the people has to include ALL OF THE PEOPLE, so there is going to be a certain measure of compromise.

"Government action... (Below threshold)
Brett:
"Government action isn't the solution, it's the problem."

Ok. This is just a lame knee-jerk reaction that makes people feel good but really has no meaning. This is about as ridiculous as some liberal claiming that government can solve all problems.

Brett, you do realize that the people you just voted for ARE THE GOVERNMENT, right? If you don't think that government and political leaders need to be part of the solution, then I assume you didn't vote.

Oh, goody, an old fashioned moonbat lecture this morning!

The people we just voted for are indeed the government - or, more exactly about 40% of the government. Their mandate, that most of us here clearly understand, is to *put a halt* to Obama and the hyper-left agenda. They had damn well better understand that or they will be gone, too.

This is the first battle in a long war for the future of this country. We won this round but it's far from over. The end result we desire is a rollback of the overarching federal government and reduction of its influence. Ideally it will be reduced to only it's constitutionally-defined roles (primarily defense) but until the numbers work out in our favor, bring "governance" to a grinding halt sounds like an excellent first step.

Obama/Pelosi/Reid and the pathetic "centrist Republicans?/RINOs may have done this country an (inadvertent) favor. They showed American voters exactly what the logical end result of their rotten-to-the-core liberal philosphies was going to be. Even though some of us have seen it coming and fought it for years, a lot of people didn't. Well, they see it now. It's time to put an end to the parasitic infestation that has taken over Washington and burdened our lives. That starts now.


In 2006, the American peopl... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

In 2006, the American people voted against (or just stayed home) the Republican's because they were spending money like drunken sailors.
In 2008, they voted the same way, and got a taste of actual drunken sailors.
In 2010, the American people sent the Shore Police into the House.
We'll see what happens in 2012.

Definitely a banner night f... (Below threshold)
Caesar Augustus:

Definitely a banner night for Republicans and mostly a disasterous night for Democrats, except of course in the U.S. Senate.

Alas, if conservatives don't learn the obvious lessons of this election cycle (and learning obvious lessons is something with which conservatives struggle mightily) we'll still be dealing with Obama as late as Jan. 2017.

Brett,"Oh, goody, ... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Brett,

"Oh, goody, an old fashioned moonbat lecture this morning!"

Wow, Brett. Very impressive. Next time, feel free to just skip this kind of drivel and just go straight to making a point.

"The people we just voted for are indeed the government - or, more exactly about 40% of the government. Their mandate, that most of us here clearly understand, is to *put a halt* to Obama and the hyper-left agenda. They had damn well better understand that or they will be gone, too."

Ok, Brett. So, to stick with your earlier logic, you think that "government is the problem, not the solution." Yet, ironically, you seem to think that electing NEW government representatives is in fact a solution. Do you see the irony, or is that going over your head? So either you don't believe in your first statement or, hopefully, you are feeling the strains of cognitive dissonance.

"The end result we desire is a rollback of the overarching federal government and reduction of its influence. Ideally it will be reduced to only it's constitutionally-defined roles (primarily defense)..."

Pretty fascinating interpretation of constitutionally-defined power. So, you think the Fed should only be about defense? Who should uphold federal law? What about the federal courts? Who will keep the balance of power between states? Who will maintain national infrastructure? What about taxation--who is going to take care of that? Who will sign treaties with foreign nations? Individual states? What about diplomacy? Just ditch it? And what about international trade agreements? Should those just be state by state? Who is going to deal with international finance issues? Should we just leave all that up to the private sector?

Sorry, but your vague call to reduce the fed is nonsense. Gotta get beyond the TV ads and posters, pal.

I have a feeling that when you say you want to reduce the influence of the fed you have something more specific in mind. At last, I hope so. Now, you would at least have an argument if you said you wanted to keep the feds out of social issues like marriage, or health care, or the banking system, or the regulation of Happy Meals. Instead, it sounds like you're just parroting vague slogans.

"...but until the numbers work out in our favor, bring "governance" to a grinding halt sounds like an excellent first step."

Ya, great plan Brett. Let's bring governance to a halt. I am going to assume you're employing hyperbole. I hope so.

Ryan A -Had a Dats... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Ryan A -

Had a Datsun 510 with a sticky throttle, which is why I used that metaphor.

Some governance? Certainly. Too much? It depends on what's considered 'too much' - the problems arise when folks can't decide on what's 'too much'.

For instance, auto safety. I LIKE seat belts - think they're one of the best bits of automotive safety equipment around. I'm ambivalent to hostile about air bags, 15 MPH bumpers and a lot of other 'improvements' - because it takes an inherently dangerous activity (IE driving) and lulls the driver & passengers into thinking they're safe as if they were in their living room. By removing a perception of risk, are the drivers prone to be MORE careful in their driving... or less? Are they going to be subconsciously depending on anti-lock brakes and traction control when they should be depending on their own driving skills and learned caution?

Not saying they shouldn't be there - but it's something to think about. IS it possible to be TOO safe? Should the market decide? Heck if I know... but I started driving before airbags became standard and I'm not convinced safety gear can take the place of actually thinking about how you're driving...

But then, we all watch the dumb ads that have no content and vote for people based upon almost zero information, so we're part of the problem too.
I'm not too sure about that. Certainly ads have SOME utility... but with DVRs becoming more prevalent, I can't recall watching a single ad - and the snail mail offerings were discarded on receipt. I THINK, and could well be wrong, that the voters were a bit more engaged this year and actually looked at the issues... and the effects on their wallets.

Add in the ability to QUICKLY learn a candidate's positions and history on an issue via the interwebs - if the desire is there -and all of a sudden 'campaigning as usual' doesn't do what's expected.

We'll see whether the Tea Party movement lasts, and whether conservatism continues as a movement - but I think the last couple of years have been pretty instructive as to what NOT to do, or allow our politicians to do. And if WE don't have control over THEM... it's time to make sure we do.

JLawson,Sticky thr... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

JLawson,

Sticky throttles...bad in old cars and bad for politics!

I like your points about safety regulations and your questions about lulling people into thinking they're always safe. I definitely agree with you about the need for people to really learn how to drive safely instead of depending on safety regulations to take care of everything.

Should the market decide? I think that the market can decide the details, but some of the really critical stuff should be regulated in some way. Maybe I'm just to skeptical about the market.

"I THINK, and could well be wrong, that the voters were a bit more engaged this year and actually looked at the issues... and the effects on their wallets."

Ya, you're right. I think I'm still irritated about the lame TV ads that were all over the place here in Kentucky. The whole thing between Rand Paul and Jack Conway became just stupid. The commercials were moronic--all sides.

But I agree with you that people certainly have access to an increased amount of information these days. And I agree that the economy has really motivated people to pay attention. I'd still argue that lots of people don't go much beyond the superficial rhetorical stuff...but then a lot of others do take the time.

"We'll see whether the Tea Party movement lasts, and whether conservatism continues as a movement - but I think the last couple of years have been pretty instructive as to what NOT to do, or allow our politicians to do. And if WE don't have control over THEM... it's time to make sure we do."

Ya, I'm interested to see where the T Party thing goes. Will they all be subsumed into the dominant GOP? How will they deal with other segments of the Republican power base? Will they appeal to more of the middle bloc of voters?

I agree that there are plenty of lessons to be learned from the last two years...economic and otherwise. And I definitely agree that the voting public needs to stay engaged and keep a good watch on these folks...that's actually how this whole system is SUPPOSED to work. If the populace doesn't pay attention, we might as well have an autocracy.

By the way, if they ever look for more authors around here you should sign up.

Ryan A -"By the... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Ryan A -

"By the way, if they ever look for more authors around here you should sign up."

Thanks for the compliment. I've thought about applying, actually - I do occasionally have slack time in the day job and I'm familiar with the MT blogging system. Plus I can usually type an understandable sentence...

Hmmm... we'll see. As I said - thank you.

While we are in the area of... (Below threshold)

While we are in the area of The American people stood athwart history and yelled, "Stop!" (Wizbang), The mix of document management services that they offer may vary from supplier to supplier, but when it comes down to archiving in particular they will all offer to collect the documentation that needs to be archived, store it in a secure facility, and allow you rapid access should you need it.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy