The thrust of his argument is that 'one swallow doesn't make a summer,' or in other words, you can't make major enduring changes after winning just one election.
But constitutional conservatives need to keep in mind that the Constitution places limits on them as well as others. The conservative House Republicans who rejected (or forced Speaker John Boehner to reject) the Senate’s patchwork compromise on the payroll tax extension bill had good policy reasons to do so, but that turned out to be terrible politics. These conservatives have been frustrated that despite their historic victory in the November 2010 elections, they have not been able to achieve many of their policy goals.They have this in common with those commentators and members of the public bemoaning political gridlock: they ignore the fact that conservative policy shortfalls and political gridlock are a result of the Constitution. The Constitution does not allow you to control government by winning just one election......
......In those circumstances it is foolish to engage in maneuvers, like the rejection of the Senate payroll tax cut compromise, which while justifiable in policy terms make no sense politically. Avoiding such fiascos is not a betrayal of constitutional principle. It is acting in the spirit of the Constitution, which requires continued affirmation from the voters before major policy changes can be made.
The very same scenario applies in New Zealand and John Key understands this. Rather than the US constitution with its staggered election for two houses and a president, New Zealand has an essentially left leaning population which has been conditioned by fifty years of rampant welfarism. Any right of centre government which won an election (2008) and embarked upon a slash and burn programme would be in opposition today, watching ALL its reforms being reversed.
Clearly, many of the long winded knuckle draggers from the uber- right do not understand this and never will.
Merry Christmas to you all.