“We’ve had a spirited debate this year about the future of our country,” New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte explained on Saturday during this week's GOP address. “The American people expect Republicans and Democrats to work together to solve the difficult challenges we face. For too long partisan bickering has paralyzed Washington, preventing members of both parties from reaching across the aisle to find common ground. That must stop.” Watch the full clip below:

“Tax reform that eliminates wasteful tax preferences to generate revenue will help bring fairness and efficiency to our tax system. This approach makes more sense than raising tax rates—which will harm nearly a million small businesses and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Curiously, President Obama said himself in 2009 -- as Ayotte points out -- that raising taxes on high income earners during tough economic times could have potentially devastating consequences:

Now, it seems, members of the president’s own party are gleefully willing to let the country go sliding off the so-called “fiscal cliff” if Republicans don’t agree to raise taxes on upper income earners. Of course, this really shouldn’t surprise anyone. Why? Because Republicans (rather unfairly) are finding themselves with their proverbial backs up against the wall, and will almost certainly be blamed by the American public if the negotiations fail. But it gets even worse: The One is reportedly traveling to Asia on Sunday to begin, among other things, cementing and “building his legacy.” Wow. It's a good thing there aren’t more pressing and urgent matters he should be attending to -- and addressing -- right here at home.

Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren (MA-D) -- who defeated Republican Senator Scott Brown by a whopping seven percentage points earlier this month -- has recently penned an op-ed in the Huffington Post criticizing intransigent Republican lawmakers in the Senate for abusing the filibuster procedure, vowing to make filibuster “reform” her first order of business on Day One. Keep reading:

When I'm sworn in just a couple of months from now, I want to fight for jobs for people who want to work. I want millionaires and billionaires and Big Oil companies to pay their fair share. And I want to hold Wall Street accountable.

But here's the honest truth: we'll never do any of that if we can't get up-or-down votes in the Senate.

Remember Jimmy Stewart's classic film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington? I love that movie. That's what most of us think of when we hear the word "filibuster" -- a single passionate senator speaking for hours about legislation they fiercely oppose until they literally collapse with exhaustion.

But that's not what today's filibuster looks like. In reality, any senator can make a phone call, say they object to a bill, then head out for the night. In the meantime, business comes to a screeching halt.

Senate Republicans have used this type of filibuster 380 times since the Democrats took over the majority in 2006. We've seen filibusters to block judicial nominations, jobs bills, political transparency, ending Big Oil subsidies -- you name it, there's been a filibuster.

There is, of course, an important point to be made here: First of all, go back and read Guy’s piece about why Republicans are filibustering hundreds of bills in the first place. (Simply put, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has -- time and again -- refused to let Republicans offer amendments to legislation being debated in the upper chamber; indeed, it’s their only recourse in some cases, as the GOP Senate leadership has already pointed out.

Meanwhile, on a completely separate note, this infuriating little nugget also caught my eye:

I learned something important in my race against Senator Brown: voters want political leaders who are willing to break the partisan gridlock. They want fewer closed-door roadblocks and more public votes on legislation that could improve their lives.

On the first day of the new session in January, the senators will have a unique opportunity to change the filibuster rule with a majority vote, rather than the normal two-thirds vote. The change can be modest: If someone objects to a bill or a nomination in the United States Senate, they should have to stand on the floor of the chamber and defend their opposition.

I'm joining Senator Jeff Merkley and six other newly elected senators to pledge to lead this reform on Day One, and I hope you'll be right there with us. Our campaign didn't end on Election Day -- and I'm counting on you to keep on working each and every day to bring real change for working families. This is the first step.

Seriously? Did Elizabeth Warren just suggest that the principal reason she was elected to the United States Senate was because voters want bipartisan leadership in Washington? This is complete and utter nonsense. Lest we forget, her opponent, outgoing Senator Scott Brown, is perhaps the most bipartisan Senator any constituency could ever ask for. During his years in the upper chamber, for example, he voted with Democrats almost as many times as he voted with members of his own party! Thus, if Massachusetts actually wanted an independent voice to represent them on Capitol Hill -- that is, a leader who could effectively break through the “gridlock” and work across the political aisle -- Scott Brown wouldn’t be heading back to Wrentham in January. Instead, the Bay State electorate (by a stunning margin) chose to replace him with a far-left liberal ideologue whose distinguished record of bipartisanship -- I suspect -- will fall far short of her predecessors by the time she leaves public life.

I’m sure by now regular readers are well aware that Texas Congressman Ron Paul is serving out his 12^th -- and final -- term in the House of Representatives and will soon retire from public life. Somewhat unexpectedly, however, during his humble and moving final speech on the House floor a few days ago, I was surprised to hear him speak, among other things, about his “failure” to rein in the size and scope of government during his long and distinguished political career. To some extent this is undoubtedly true -- after all, the United States is headed straight for a debt crisis that lawmakers in Washington seem utterly incapable of averting, let alone reversing. On the other hand, the Texas Congressman has much to be proud of.

In fact, in a recent op-ed published in the Washington Times, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul vigorously defended his father’s legacy, reminding every American the invaluable and innumerable contributions he has made to the public at large by inspiring young people, uniting disparate groups, and carrying the torch of liberty to every corner of the nation:

Some argue that Ron Paul was never relevant, that he was simply a gadfly who never accomplished anything legislatively. Others, myself included, argue that maybe, just maybe, the Ron Paul Revolution is the last best hope for saving the GOP from oblivion.

As I walk through airports, ride in taxis and meet people in large cities — people of color, working-class people, people with tattoos, people in overalls, people with piercings and even, at times, people in suits — I am amazed at the diversity of folks who come up and say how much they admire Ron Paul

At rallies around the country, from the liberal bastion of Berkeley, Calif., where 8,000 students came to an event, to Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, kids from all over the political spectrum came to listen to Ron Paul.

The naysayers will point out: “He didn’t even win a primary.” This is true, but when polled directly against President Obama, Ron Paul ran neck-and-neck with an interesting demographic. In the heat of the campaign, a Feb. 28 Rasmussen poll showed him leading Mr. Obama, winning the independent vote, taking a significant part of the Democratic vote and losing a significant part of the Republican vote. He truly attracted voters across the political divide from both parties and from independents.

Not only did he attract voters from all stars and stripes, but in many ways he also typified what it meant to be a public servant:

In 1984, my father wrote a farewell address when he left Congress for the first time. He went back to delivering babies for 12 years. He didn’t think he would ever return to government. At that time, he wrote:

“Thousands of men and women have come and gone here in our country’s history, and except for the few, most go unnoticed and remain nameless in the pages of history, as I am sure I will be. The few who are remembered are those who were able to grab the reins of power and, for the most part, use that power to the detriment of the nation. We must remember that achieving power is never the goal sought by a truly free society. Dissipation of power is the objective of those who love liberty.”

…

For inspiring a new generation to love the ideas of liberty, we all owe a debt of gratitude to my father, the champion of liberty, Ron Paul.

As Senator Paul correctly points out, his father will not soon be forgotten. His strict adherence to the principles enumerated in the Constitution as well as his unwavering belief in the entrepreneurial spirit of individuals -- not government -- will long live on through the men and women he inspired. One can certainly say many things about Representative Ron Paul, of course, but one can never say that he pandered for votes or was guilty of self-aggrandizement. In truth, he was (and still is) a man of deep conviction -- and our democratic republic has benefitted greatly from his insights into the abject failures of statism and the dangers of Keynesian economics. In short, we at Townhall wish Dr. Paul a happy and safe retirement. It is well deserved.

Believe me: This isn’t the first time our vaunted Senate Majority Leader has made baseless accusations with little or no evidence (via The Daily Caller):

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday he was “very comfortable” with the prospect of defending an open seat in his chamber should Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry be tapped for a Cabinet position, and slammed outgoing Republican Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, who would likely run to replace Kerry.

“I saw during the campaign his plea for bipartisanship,” Reid said of Brown, who ran as a moderate and independent Republican willing to work across the aisle in his ultimately unsuccessful race against Elizabeth Warren. “That is a big joke.”

“He is a travesty. He is one of the most partisan people that ever served here,” Reid went on. “He could have saved Citizens United, he could have been the 60th vote on that and many other things.”

“So I don’t need a lecture from him on bipartisanship,” Reid concluded. “He should go look in a mirror.”

Where to begin? The truth is that in 2011 Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) was ranked the second most bipartisan Senator in Washington, and, according to the same Congressional Quarterly study, only voted with his party 54 percent of the time. That’s a pretty distinguished track record of bipartisanship -- especially at a time of increased polarization and gridlock inside the corridors of Congress. By contrast, of course, Senator Reid (so far) has voted with his party 94 percent of the time on 433 votes since the start of the 112^th Congress -- and voted with his party 95 percent of the time on 689 votes during the 111^th Congress, according to the Washington Post. In other words, who’s the real “partisan” lawmaker, again?

Reid, incidentally, is also the same partisan who stood on the floor of the Senate Chamber and maliciously accused Governor Mitt Romney of not paying any taxes for ten years, citing an anonymous and disgruntled former Bain Capital investor as “evidence.” He lied. Now, as Guy recently reported, he’s determined to pass filibuster “reform” in a concerted effort to limit GOP lawmakers from blocking legislation they disagree with (or want to amend) in the upper chamber -- a hypocritical and shameless political maneuver he explicitly warned about when Senate Democrats were the minority party. Sadly, it seems, the Majority Leader’s rank hypocrisy and blind partisanship is on full display these days…and becoming more and more noticeable.

Of course he did -- and for obvious reasons:

Outgoing Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) told reporters Tuesday that he has no existing plans to seek office again but did not rule out a future run.

"I'm not even concerned about that right now," he said during a press briefing in the Capitol, adding that the country faces huge challenges.

In response to a question, he said Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), a rumored candidate for Secretary of State, would be an "excellent" choice for the job. If Kerry vacates his seat, Brown would have the option of making another run for senator.

"We'll see what happens," Brown said.

"Aside from my marriage to my wife and the birth of my kids, serving in the Senate has been the greatest honor of my life," he said. "There isn't an opening for senator. But there is an opening for a dad and a husband."

While it is certainly true that there isn't an “opening for senator” in Massachusetts at the moment (although that may change, as the excerpt above indicates) it’s also worth noting that the governor’s mansion will be vacant in 2014. Governor Deval Patrick (D-MA) will not seek re-election, and considering Massachusetts has a surprisingly long history of electing Republican governors, Brown’s staggering loss to Elizabeth Warren may ironically open up new windows of opportunity. Whatever he decides to do, however, remains to be seen -- and will likely be dependent upon factors beyond his control. Still, suffice it to say we (probably) haven't heard the last from the outgoing junior Senator from Massachusetts.

Of course, virtually every American who follows politics closely will posit an explanation for why Mitt Romney came up short in 2012. But Sean Trende’s analysis over at Real Clear Politics seems to be the most insightful -- and plausible. Take a look at the following chart embedded in his must-read article:

Conventional wisdom tells us that Republicans lost because they failed to reach out to Hispanics, African-Americans and young people. And to a certain extent that is undoubtedly true. But the truth is that a plurality of white voters simply didn’t vote. A passing glance at the chart above shows that more than six million white voters (who cast ballots 2008) stayed home in 2012 -- a sizable chunk of the electorate that overwhelmingly favored Mitt Romney this election cycle. Why? Because, according to Trende, while many white voters were eminently disenchanted with the president’s economic policies, Team Obama’s relentlessly negative campaign ads took a heavy -- and perhaps unexpected -- toll.

My sense is these voters were unhappy with Obama. But his negative ad campaign relentlessly emphasizing Romney’s wealth and tenure at Bain Capital may have turned them off to the Republican nominee as well. The Romney campaign exacerbated this through the challenger’s failure to articulate a clear, positive agenda to address these voters’ fears, and self-inflicted wounds like the “47 percent” gaffe. Given a choice between two unpalatable options, these voters simply stayed home

As Carol noted, it was a (fatal) mistake for Team Romney not to respond to the barrage of overwhelmingly negative campaign ads last summer that raised serious and unfair questions about the Republican candidate’s character, business career, and commitment to the less fortunate. These lies cemented the myth that Mitt Romney was a cold-hearted, greedy businessman who didn’t care about poor people in the public’s collective mind. Republicans, it seems, would do well to remember how these negative (and effective) campaign tactics impacted the 2012 election in years to come, especially because we now know -- if we didn’t before -- that the mainstream media is no ally of the Republican Party. Presidential candidates need to set the record straight themselves -- not wait for “journalists” to do it for them.

This is not to say, however, that party elders can ignore the nation’s changing demographics. Put simply, the GOP cannot hope to win national elections by losing (give or take) 93 percent and 71 percent of the black and Hispanic vote, respectively. This is unacceptable. Republicans need to find a way to appeal to an increasingly diverse and heterogeneous electorate -- a reality I hope GOP operatives are already starting to think about.

As the headline suggests, it’s worth noting that this has been the most expensive presidential election in American history:

Total spending for the 2012 presidential election has blown away previous cycles with so-called super PACs laying down a staggering $629 million.

When combined with Team Obama and Team Romney collectively spending roughly $2 billion, this year's presidential cycle becomes the most expensive in American history.

Still, what remains unclear is the impact so much money has had on this race -- particularly from the loosely, but not officially, affiliated super PACs -- considering residents in Ohio and a handful of other battleground states say they have essentially tuned out after being so inundated with radio, TV and web ads.

"Just the amount of money is beyond the pale," said Ben Tulchin, a San Francisco-based Democratic strategist and pollster. "But you wonder about the law of diminishing returns. Potential voters are bombarded with so many ads that it becomes hard to break through."

But more to the point: How much money did each respective candidate raise -- and spend -- this election cycle? Let’s take a look (via the Washington Times):

President Obama and Mitt Romney raised about $1 billion each and relied on outside groups that spent another billion on the presidential race, mounting a stimulus for political consultants and broadcasters everywhere and obliterating a decades-old system that provided taxpayer funds to candidates in exchange for keeping spending low.

Mr. Obama raised more than $1.1 billion, and Mr. Romney raised $931 million as of the latest disclosures, which mostly cover the period through Oct. 17, with each side incessantly claiming it was being outraised and urgently begging for support, nuclear arms-race style, to remedy the situation.

Mr. Romney had to devote some of his funding to fighting off primary challengers, and, for a campaign that centered on fiscal prudence, his campaign and allies spent remarkably inefficiently on advertising.

In the end, though, each campaign had all the money it could spend or more, and while previous years’ candidates had to make hard choices as cash dwindled about which areas to pull out of, the Romney campaign actually entered additional states because of a different problem: There wasn’t enough airtime left on battleground-state TV stations to satisfy all the political groups that wanted it.

In other words, I don’t think Romney can attribute his loss tonight to a lack of financial resources. He had plenty of money -- as the above article points out. So why, then, did he lose?

Well, my friends, that’s a question Republicans across the country will no doubt be asking themselves for months if not years to come.

The race to fill the seat of retiring Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI) has been called, and Democratic Senate Candidate Mazie Hiron has been declared the winner. The results shouldn’t be surprising: Linda Lingle -- the Republican candidate -- has trailed her opponent by double digits in virtually every single poll conducted this election cycle.

Stay tuned all day for Townhall election coverage and late into the night for live election results of every race in every state.

Like so many other battleground states, President Obama maintained a small yet statistically insignificant lead over Governor Romney in the Hawkeye State prior to Election Day. Now, however, with 53% of precincts reporting, Barack Obama has won Iowa and all six electoral votes by a healthy margin.

Stay tuned all day for Townhall election coverage and late into the night for live election results of every race in every state.

We at Townhall have been covering this hotly contested Senate race for months and the results are finally in: With 36 percent of precincts reporting, Elizabeth Warren has been declared the next junior Senator from Massachusetts.

Warren has never held public office before and the eye-popping $36 million she raised this election cycle evidently proved more than enough to unseat incumbent Senator Scott Brown. This was the most expensive Senate race of 2012 -- by a long shot.

Stay tuned all day for Townhall election coverage and late into the night for live election results of every race in every state.