U.S. 2012 Election

[ltmaverick25]

Dont feel so bad, there is alot of hypocricy with our libs too. 

 

[Retired AF Guy]

From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_trash

A pregnant seventeen year-old daughter, with an eighteen year old self-declared f---in' redneck, high-school dropout boyfriend (whose mother gets arrested for selling OxyContin) would qualify in most circles as white trash.

Actually, the Palin's would not qualify 'as white trash."  According to the link you provided "white trash" refers to, "lower social class white people with poor prospects and/or low levels of education. ... To call someone white trash was to accuse a white person of being economically, educationally and/or culturally bankrupt." (My emphasis)

Whatever you may think about the Sarah Palin and her family, they, most assuredly, do not fall into any of the above categories.

 

[a_majoor]

Now that everyone has exposed their political and idiological bias through their reaction to Governor Palin, here is one of the "Uber issues" that needs to be discussed and debated by politicians of all stripes leading up to 2012. The Democrat Party has already indicated by word and deed their aim is the expansion of State power and politicization of the economy, anyone arguing the opposite needs to start here:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_01_25-2009_01_31.shtml#1233381066

Why the Size of Government Matters:

In his inaugural address, President Obama said that "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works." This is a commonly heard argument in response to concerns about the growth of government. Who could possibly be against government when it "works"? Why not instead consider each proposed expansion of the state on a case by case basis, supporting those that "work" and opposing any that don't?

Taken seriously, this argument leads to the rejection of any systematic constraints on government power. Why should we have a general presumption against government regulation of speech or religion? Why not instead support censorship when it "works" by improving the marketplace of ideas, and oppose it when it doesn't? Think of all the misleading speech and religious charlatans that government regulation could potentially save us from! The answer, of course, is that government regulation of speech and religion has systematic dangers that are not unique to any one particular regulation. Given those systematic flaws, it makes sense to have a general presumption against it.

The same holds true for government intervention more generally, including in the economy. It too has systematic flaws that justify a presumption against it. Three of those flaws are particularly relevant to current policy debates.

First, government officials have poor incentives relative to the private sector. Because the resources they spend are not their own money, they are more likely to waste them or divert them to favored interest groups. These poor incentives are visible in almost every major government spending bill, where large amounts of money are spent on porkbarrel projects and the like. The current stimulus bill is no exception, with its handouts for a variety of interest groups.

Second, as I have often emphasized in my academic work and on this blog, the quality of government policy is severely compromised by widespread voter ignorance. The majority of voters know very little about public policy and make poor use of the information they do have. Voter ignorance and irrationality are perfectly rational, because the chance that any one voter's knowledge will make a difference is infinitesmally small. Still, they routinely result in voters supporting flawed policies and doing a poor job of evaluating the performance of elected officials. For example, they blame politicians for bad weather, and routinely support protectionism despite the overwhelming evidence against it. The dangers of voter ignorance are likely to increase as government grows. The bigger government gets, the more of it there is for voters to monitor, and the more difficult it will be for them to have even a superficial knowledge of all its functions.

Third, even relatively well-informed voters and well-intentioned government officials will often lack the information they need to allocate resources more effectively than the market would in their place. As F.A. Hayek argued in his classic essay, "The Use of Knowledge in Society," government planners lacks the kind of information that the price system routinely provides to market participants. Thus, they usually have no way of knowing whether the projects they want to spend tax money on will yield benefits that outweigh their costs.

These systematic shortcomings of government are particularly dangerous in times of crisis, like the present. Given widespread voter ignorance and their own perverse incentives, government officials often use crises to justify harmful expansions of government power by selling them as emergency measures - even if they have little or no real connection to the emergency in question. This is why White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel says that "[y]ou never want a serious crisis to go to waste" because it is "an opportunity to do things you could not do before."

The current spending bill before Congress is no exception. It is being marketed as a "stimulus." Yet only 8% of the new spending will occur this year, and only 41% in the next two years - too late to provide stimulus while the recession is still ongoing. This suggests that most of the new spending isn't really about stimulus and has more to do with other policy priorities that are being misleadingly sold as emergency measures.

These points don't prove that all government interventions are undesirable. It is possible for them to be outweighed by other considerations in any given case. They do, however, show that there is reason for systematic concern about the size of government, and for a strong but not insuperable presumption against its expansion. In the same way, we have good reason for a presumption against government regulation of speech and religion, even though that presumption cannot be absolute. We can, for example, ban shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, yet still have a general rule against censorship.

To put it in Obama's terms, our society will "work" a lot better if we can prevent government from getting too big. And that requires paying a lot more attention to the state's rapidly expanding waistline than the president wants us to.

UPDATE: I should have noted that the 8% figure is for the percentage of spending in the current fiscal year (which ends September 30), rather than calendar year. I don't think this difference of three months is critical, but I do want to correct the error.

 

[tomahawk6]

The democrat controlled Congress is working on a bill that would crush any car/SUV that doesnt get better than 18mph. Big government on the move and will only get worse.

http://www.sema.org/Main/Artic...aspx?contentID=61134

 

[CougarKing]

If Palin wants to seriously consider running again, she has to get this cleared up first. And no, this allegation doesn't mean she was previously tapped for Obama' s cabinet like those other nominated officials. ;D

http://www.adn.com/palin/story/693695.html

Palin owes tax on per diem, state says
EXPENSES: Governor received meal money while living in Wasilla.

By LISA DEMER
ldemer@adn.com

Published: February 17th, 2009 09:53 PM
Last Modified: February 18th, 2009 10:39 AM

Gov. Sarah Palin must pay income taxes on thousands of dollars in expense money she received while living at her Wasilla home, under a new determination by state officials.


The governor's office wouldn't say this week how much she owes in back taxes for meal money, or whether she intends to continue to receive the per diem allowance. As of December, she was still charging the state for meals and incidentals.
"The amount of taxes owed is a private matter," Sharon Leighow, Palin's spokeswoman, said in an e-mail. "If the governor collects future per diem, those documents would be a matter of public record."

The revelation about Palin comes as U.S. senators, including Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, are under scrutiny over back taxes. A survey by the political newspaper and Web site Politico (www.politico.com) found that Begich was one of seven senators who acknowledged having paid back taxes.

Some other state employees also owe back income taxes for travel payments and will be getting revised tax forms, Annette Kreitzer, state administration commissioner, said in an e-mail.

She wouldn't say which, or how many, employees will be receiving the notifications.

The payments became a touchy issue for Palin last fall when she was running for vice president and campaigned as a budget watchdog.

The Washington Post published a story in mid-September that said she had charged the state almost $17,000 for meals and incidentals while staying in her own home.

The state considers Juneau, where she lives in the Governor's Mansion, to be Palin's official duty station.

Palin billed the state for 312 nights spent in her Wasilla home during her first 19 months in office, according to the Washington Post. She received $60 a day tax free, money intended to cover meals and incidentals, while traveling on state business, her travel forms show.

"Last fall we raised questions about longstanding practices within the Department of Administration regarding tax treatment of per diem payments," Kreitzer wrote in an exchange of e-mails over the past few days with the Daily News.

"At the Governor's request, we reviewed the situation to determine whether we were in full compliance with the pertinent Internal Revenue Service regulations," Kreitzer wrote. "As a result of this review, we determined that per diem needs to be treated as income, requiring a revision of W-2 forms for any affected employees."

The new determination by administration officials won't affect state lawmakers, said Pam Varni, director of the Legislative Affairs agency.

Under IRS guidelines, legislators receive tax-free payments to help with living expenses while in Juneau for the legislative session -- if their home is at least 50 miles away, Varni said.

The current rate, set by the U.S. Department of Defense, is $189 a day. That goes to everyone except the three Juneau-based legislators, who get smaller payments that are taxed as compensation.

Legislators can also charge the state $150 a day for time spent on state business when the Legislature is not in session, but those payments are taxed as income, Varni said.

Begich's situation came to light through a political survey released last week by Politico about senators and their taxes.

Fifty-five senators, including Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, didn't answer the questions, and a few others owed money but didn't consider it "back taxes" for one reason or another.

On his way out of a meeting with veterans on Monday, Begich answered a few questions about the back taxes he paid on a vehicle provided to him by the city when he was mayor.

"I refused the car the first 10 or 12 months," Begich said. "I didn't want the car.

"Then they told me I had to have it because of liability and a need and security and blah, blah, blah. So I ended up getting a used car. The first time a mayor has gotten a used car." It was a former police SUV.

The tax obligation came to his attention in late 2007, as he remembers it, after a regular IRS audit of city issues. The city then sent him revised tax statements.

"They gave me a letter and said you got to pay taxes on it. So they revised my W-2s." He wouldn't say how much he owed. "It's irrelevant," Begich said.

Generally, people are supposed to pay income taxes on the value of an employer-provided vehicle that is for personal use. Police vehicles are among the exceptions -- officers can drive them home and not be taxed on the value of the commute.

There's no specific exception in the law for mayors or governors. Palin has had a state Chevy Suburban.

Begich said a mayor is always on the job. No other Anchorage mayor ever had to pay income taxes on a city vehicle, he said.

"That's the point. I'm always on call. Always. ... And I think that's what the city's view was, for the city manager and me, was that we were always on call," Begich said. "But the IRS viewed it differently."

"After that issue came up, I got rid of the car," Begich said. He was in a downtown parking lot getting into the Toyota Highlander hybrid he bought in late 2007 to replace the city rig.

The Politico story about the survey said his situation echoed that of Tom Daschle, who had to step down as President Barack Obama's pick for health secretary after revelations about back taxes, including taxes owed for a limo and driver.

"For Politico to say it's the same as Daschle -- that's bunk," Begich said.

 

 

[a_majoor]

A look at some of the potential lights in the upcoming election cycle (although President Obama is already in campaign mode). One of the other people to watch is S Carolina Governor Mark Sanford:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/01/limbaugh-steals-cpac-spotlight/

[/b]Limbaugh steals CPAC spotlight
Ralph Z. Hallow (Contact)
Sunday, March 1, 2009

If there were a correlation between crowd-pleasing and winning the presidency, then the 2012 Republican presidential nominee would be either former House Speaker Newt Gingrich or former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Both men were standing-room-only attractions at the 36th annual Conservative Political Action Conference, which concluded Saturday. Among political officeholders, the two men won the longest, most-sustained applause, the biggest appreciative hoots and hollers, and the most standing ovations. And both men did the same last year.

But the biggest star was talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh, who, according to conference organizers, was received like no other speaker in those 36 years, even Ronald Reagan. Almost 2,000 people crammed into the main ballroom and hundreds of others watched on big-screen TVs set up in two overflow rooms.

With his speech being broadcast live by C-SPAN, CNN and Fox News as a major news event, Mr. Limbaugh quipped: "Ladies and gentleman, this is my first-ever address to the nation."

He took off the gloves, saying it's not unpatriotic to want President Obama to fail because, he said, what the Democratic president is trying to do will make America fail. Democrats are running an attack ad that portrays Mr. Limbaugh as the real Republican leader, pulling the strings and calling the shots, so Mr. Limbaugh played on that idea by going after Republican lawmakers as well.

Referring to the Republican leaders in the Senate and House, he said, "Obama is obviously more frightened of me than he is [of] Mitch McConnell. He's more frightened of me, than he is of, say, John Boehner, which doesn't say much about the party."

Besides Mr. Limbaugh, according to many attendees, acerbic author-pundit Ann Coulter and National Rifle Association leader Wayne LaPierre raised the Omni Shoreham roof higher, but if they plan to switch to political careers, they neglected to tell their cheering CPAC fans.

"Romney was fantastic," said Republican elections-law lawyer Cleta Mitchell.

"He was serious on conservative principles and demonstrated his depth on economic issues. Plus his best line was: 'I have news for Eric Holder: America is not a nation of cowards,' " she said, referring to the attorney general's recent characterization of what he considers America's skittishness about discussing issues of race.

Mr. Romney also scored his third straight victory in the CPAC straw poll on who should be the next Republican presidential nominee, drawing 20 percent of the 1,757 conventioneers who voted. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal was second at 14 percent, followed by Rep. Ron Paul of Texas and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin at 13 percent each. Mr. Gingrich was fifth with 10 percent, with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee at 7 percent. No other candidate in the open poll topped 5 percent, and 9 percent were undecided.

There were others who generated enthusiasm on the CPAC stage this year, amid attendance at the three-day event that had jumped to nearly 9,000 from last year's 6,000. Although not as well-known, some may have that intangible something extra that makes national political success possible.

Exhibiting a podium style of a serious-minded young nephew with a sense of humor, but who is the fully focused manager of the family business, Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota accused Democrats of being pro-jobs but anti-business.

"That's like being pro-egg but anti-chicken," Mr. Pawlenty said, getting a roar of approving laughter. He also brought the house down with a crack about the extreme affection MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews shows for President Obama.

"The only thing growing faster than the federal budget deficit is Chris Matthews' man-crush on President Obama," Mr. Pawlenty said.

Other veteran CPAC activists were equally enthusiastic about the self-deprecating Mr. Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister.

The former Arkansas governor got the ballroom crowd rocking with conservative slogans and rolling with laughter.

Mr. Huckabee told the audience that he knew MSNBC finally had gotten religion when Mr. Jindal was about to begin his response to Mr. Obama's speech Tuesday to a joint session of Congress. Mr. Matthews, not realizing his microphone was on, exclaimed, "Oh, God!" Mr. Huckabee then said the network's new name should be "MSBS."

 

[CougarKing]

    THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned that General [David] Petraeus is planning on delivering the commencement address at the University of Iowa in 2010.

    Petraeus going to Iowa, a state he doesn’t have previous ties to, is going to create a huge amount of buzz about his presidential ambitions because the Iowa Caucuses kick off the whole presidential nomination process. If he does, deliver the address—and Petraeus must know this—it will be seen as a sign that he is thinking about running in 2012.

Back in August of 2008, before the disastrous selection of Sarah Palin, I suggested that John McCain might do well to place a call to General Petraeus and find out if he was considering retirement. (And I wasn’t the only one.) If so, he could have made the ideal VP candidate for the GOP ticket. So is this move actually an indication that the general is considering a promotion all the up to Commander in Chief? Anything is possible, I’m sure, but it could also simply be a way for Petraeus to remain active in public service and contribute to the public discourse. After all, he is also going to be speaking at commencement addresses at Princeton, Harvard and M.I.T.

Our history with military commanders moving to the West Wing has been somewhat hit and miss. Eisenhower is still regarded as one of the greatest presidents of all time, though personally I feel that’s a bit too generous of a ranking. George Washington was a general, of course, but it fell on him to pretty much define the presidency so that’s something of an exceptional case. U.S. Grant was not just a general, but a hero of the American Civil War, but his tenure as President is widely viewed as nothing short of disastrous. Plenty of other presidents have military experience and they served with varying degrees of success. (Jimmy Carter, anyone?)

What sort of chance would Petraeus have in 2012 and what qualifications would he bring to the table? Popularity isn’t even a question as he has become a widely admired figure across the country. He can also lay claim to far more experience than just being a “grunt with a gun.” (Note: Yes… I’m aware of the colloquial meaning of “grunt” but the alliteration worked for me.) In his most recent positions, Petraeus has had to work with and organize coalitions of frequently adversarial forces and deal with the leaders of many nations. But will that translate into a prima facie resume of one who is “ready to lead” on day one in Washington? 

http://themoderatevoice.com/27139/from-general-to-president/

Will he be the surprise contender?  Follow in the footsteps of Eisenhower or Grant? 

 

[tomahawk6]

Story isnt true.

 

[a_majoor]

It is much easier to win the election if you can just make up your own congressional districts and electoral college votes...

http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2009/03/great-idea-lets-involve-acorn-in-census.html

Great Idea! Let's Involve ACORN in the Census

What could possibly go wrong with a criminal enterprise involved in the 2010 census?
The U.S. Census is supposed to be free of politics, but one group with a history of voter fraud, ACORN, is participating in next year's count, raising concerns about the politicization of the decennial survey.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now signed on as a national partner with the U.S. Census Bureau in February 2009 to assist with the recruitment of the 1.4 million temporary workers needed to go door-to-door to count every person in the United States -- currently believed to be more than 306 million people.

A U.S. Census "sell sheet," an advertisement used to recruit national partners, says partnerships with groups like ACORN "play an important role in making the 2010 Census successful," including by "help[ing] recruit census workers."

The bureau is currently employing help from more than 250 national partners, including TARGET and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), to assist in the hiring effort.

But ACORN's partnership with the 2010 Census is worrisome to lawmakers who say past allegations of fraud should raise concerns about the organization.

"It's a concern, especially when you look at all the different charges of voter fraud. And it's not just the lawmakers' concern. It should be the concern of every citizen in the country," Rep. Lynn A. Westmoreland, R-Ga., vice ranking member of the subcommittee for the U.S. Census, told FOXNews.com. "We want an enumeration. We don't want to have any false numbers."

ACORN, which claims to be a non-partisan grassroots community organization of low- and moderate-income people, came under fire in 2007 when Washington State filed felony charges against several paid ACORN employees and supervisors for more than 1,700 fraudulent voter registrations. In March 2008, an ACORN worker in Pennsylvania was sentenced for making 29 phony voter registration forms. The group's activities were frequently questioned in the 2008 presidential election.

 

[Yrys]

It’s Never to Soon to Think About 2012

President Obama has been in the White House for only two months and three days, but his strategists
at the Democratic National Committee are already looking ahead to 2012.

Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia, the chairman of the D.N.C., announced Monday evening the formation of
a 37-member commission to study the party’s primary and caucus calendar for the next election. It
may seem like a foregone conclusion that Mr. Obama will be the party’s nominee, but (to borrow a
cliché) three years is a political eternity, so Democratic leaders are setting up a system to get
ready for 2012.

Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina will lead
the Democratic Change Commission, which is scheduled to report its findings no later than Jan. 1,
2010. The commission, which is largely comprised of Democrats who supported Mr. Obama (and
a few who backed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in last year’s contentious primary season), will
review and streamline the 2008 calendar.

“This commission will focus on reform that improves the presidential nominating process,” Mr. Kane
said in a statement, “to put voters first and ensure that as many people as possible can participate.”


In announcing the commission, Mr. Kaine outlined three goals: changing the window for primaries and
caucuses, reducing the number of superdelegates and improving the caucus system. As an insurgent
candidate, Mr. Obama benefited from the rules in the 2008 campaign, but also was an eyewitness to
the pitfalls of the process.

The nominating contest begins earlier and earlier most every presidential election cycle. Next time,
party leaders say, the primaries and caucuses will start no sooner than Feb. 1, which is a month later
than the 2008 race. The Democratic rules, of course, are subject to change, which is how the
extraordinarily front-loaded system came about last year.

David Plouffe, the campaign manager for Mr. Obama, is among the members of the commission. The
early states from 2008 also have representatives in the group, including Iowa, New Hampshire, South
Carolina and Nevada, along with a cadre of familiar names from Democratic circles as well as new
faces.

If everything goes as planned – in the eyes of the White House – Mr. Obama will sail through the
Democratic primaries to be at full strength for the general election with a yet-to-be-identified
Republican. Set your watches: the 2012 games will begin in less than three years.

 

[a_majoor]

The emporor has no coattails, good one!

http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2009/04/wonderful-ny-20-race-dead-heat-waiting.html

Wonderful! NY-20 Race a Dead Heat, Waiting on Absentee Ballots and Likely Headed for Recount

It doesn't get much closer than this.
Scott Murphy (D): 77,344 - 50%
Jim Tedisco (R): 77,285 - 50%
% Precincts Reporting: 100%

But hold on, kids, there are absentee ballots to be counted, so don't expect any official results until April 13, which gives ACORN enough time to find some late votes for the Democrat.

Oddly enough, this Congressional seat is outside Tedisco's Assembly district, so the people who've been sending him to Albany for two decades couldn't vote for him.

While a formerly heavy GOP district, Obama narrowly won the region in November and it's considered in some quarters a referendum on the porkulus bill.

Mr. Murphy closely aligned himself with President Obama, who narrowly won the district in November; Mr. Murphy also won support by promoting the stimulus package. Mr. Tedisco, who eventually came out against the stimulus, struggled to articulate a compelling economic message early on, but capitalized on outrage over bonuses for financial executives, portraying Mr. Murphy as sympathizing with Wall Street financiers more than ordinary upstate families.

The Democrat machine threw everything they had into this election and with these results it doesn't appear there's much if anything to be celebrating if they manage to narrowly keep the seat vacated by Kirsten Gillibrand.

All sorts of reaction here. The left-leaning media and blogs are declaring it a huge defeat for the GOP. Considering it was their seat they were defending and Obama apparently has no coattails, that's some unique spin. But what do you expect from these people?

Gillibrand won by 24 points in November. If Murphy wins it'll be by the skin of his teeth. And that's supposed to be an ominous sign for the GOP? I'd say it's more a reflection that Obama and the national Democrats may have some problems come the midterms.

 

[a_majoor]

Here is a theme for the election (and we have four years to drive it home):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsrFa9jrpv8

 

[a_majoor]

If the Republicans don't shape up (and especially if a high profile leader with clearly conservative credentials and views fails to step up); then a third party movement might ignite. It should be interesting to see who is on the bandwagon April 15:

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/04/politics-and-the-tea-party-movement.html

Politics And The Tea Party Movement

The collision of the Tea Party movement and politics was always inevitable. It seems to be gaining some steam. Even Senators now have a chance to weigh in given this resolution.

Whereas taxpayers in the United States are expressing their opposition to high taxes and skyrocketing spending by the United States Government by organizing ‘‘Taxed Enough Already’’ parties, also known as ‘‘TEA’’ parties:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate designates each of April 15, 2009, and April 15, 2010, as ‘‘National TEA Party Day’’.

Unfortunately for now, it seems some politicians would rather hide under their desks. h/t Instapundit.

Taxpayer tea parties have rattled some politicians in Washington, as thousands have gathered in cities across America to object to President Obama’s spending policies. But no politician was rattled as severely as the staff of Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) was yesterday.

After opening an envelope containing a teabag and marked “Tea Protest” in the Congresswoman’s Manchester office, Shea-Porter’s staff called Capitol Police and city police and firefighters.

Regarding the Vitter resolution above, actually Vitter has been on board with the movement for some time. And with other high profile Republicans including Newt Gingrich on board, it's only a matter of time before the movement solidifies. April 15th should be a very interesting day. Maybe it's time to get that manifesto firmed up, too.

On April 15, millions of grassroots voters will assemble in cities and towns across the country for the first National TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party to register their displeasure with our government's addiction to wasteful spending, bailouts for big business, and higher taxes. Help me force the Senate to recognize this day as a formal protest by the people against these policies. I support the efforts to enshrine in law a National TEA Party Day, and am completing the form below to become a Citizen Co-Sponsor of Senator Vitter’s resolution.

Email this

 

[a_majoor]

Not much time for the congressional mid terms and the 2012 election to remake the party, but then again the "Radical Republicans" replaced the Whig party with incredible speed in the mid 1800's (President Lincoln started his political career as a Whig, then became one of the driving forces behind the creation and growth of the Republican Party). So the question is, can a "third party" gain enough momentum to become a viable player, (Libertarians or New Whigs), or can the Republican Party remake itself with new talent and new voices?

http://rasmussenreports.getmobile.com/site?t=hdtF0ElC1KIfy0VKQdh2Xw&sid=rassenreports-feblzqlu&tcid=QWCc120b0f7908b4ba6ada0ee01b68d16d3

Is The Beltway GOP Irrelevant?
An Analysis By Scott Rasmussen

To be relevant in politics, you need either formal power or a lot of people willing to follow your lead. The governing Republicans in the nation's capital have lost both on their continuing path to irrelevance.

The disconnect between D.C. Republicans and Republicans throughout the country has been growing for nearly 20 years, but it became more intense and noticeable during the waning years of the Bush administration.

Perhaps the final straw was the $700 billion bank bailout plan pushed through Congress last fall despite strong voter opposition. For all the furor unleashed this spring by congressional Republicans about President Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan, the Bush-era bailouts last fall were approved with virtually no advance notice and no guidelines as to how the money would be spent. Looking back, most voters and nearly eight-out-of-10 Republicans now believe the bailouts were a bad idea .

The April 15 "tea party" protests, viewed favorably by 51% of Americans , were fueled as much by anger at the bailouts as anything else. Many Inside-the-Beltway Republicans chose to distance themselves from the events, and many tea party participants were happy to express their anger at both Beltway Republicans and Democrats.

The bailouts came on top of earlier doubts. Many Republicans had expressed concern about the growth of government spending throughout the Bush years. Then there was the immigration issue. On that topic, the Bush team championed a bill that was even less popular than the bailouts. Eventually, despite strong bipartisan support in Congress, the Senate surrendered to public opinion and failed to pass the Bush-backed reform. Beltway Republicans just didn't recognize the large gap between Mainstream American and the Political Class on this issue and assumed that those angry about it are angry at the immigrants. In fact, data shows that the anger is directed primarily at the federal government .

The disconnect between the Republican base and Beltway Republicans also can be seen in the recent history of presidential nominations. In the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, was seen by voters as more likely to deliver tax cuts than Republican nominee John McCain. By the way, Bill Clinton's victories in the 1990s also followed a belief that he was more likely to deliver tax cuts than his GOP opponent. It's hard to imagine how the party of Ronald Reagan could let that happen, but it did.

The trend began in 1988 when the first President Bush was elected on the strength of Reagan's record. Once safely in office, Bush appeared to forget what it was he said after asking voters to read his lips, and he ended up governing with a fiscal policy that was more like Bill Clinton's than Ronald Reagan's. By 1992, the Republican share of the presidential vote fell to 37%, a 22-point decline from Reagan's total eight years earlier.

In 1996, the GOP nominated Bob Dole, an honorable man and a capable legislator, but he was also a man famously described as having never met a tax he didn't hike. Dole could only pick up 41% of the vote.

Then, in 2000, the second George Bush was nominated in large part on the strength of his inherited name recognition and network. While he learned from his father's mistake about tax cuts, he was unable to connect that to a larger purpose. By the end of Bush's second term, the war in Iraq had dragged down the GOP, and Beltway Republicans became identified as the party of big business. That's not a good place to be when 70% of Americans view big business and big government on the same team working against the interests of consumers and investors.

The gap between Beltway Republicans and the Republican base is part of a wider gap between the Mainstream and the Political Class. On many issues, the gap between Mainstream Americans and the Political Class is bigger than the gap between Mainstream Republicans and Mainstream Democrats.

But Political Class Democrats control Congress and the White House while their GOP counterparts have little in the way of power and influence to overcome the disconnect with their base. One immediate result of this is that senior senators like Arlen Specter and John McCain now are facing primary challenges. Other challenges may follow. It used to be possible for Republicans in Washington to argue that they needed someone like Specter or McCain to hang on to the majority but no longer.

Look for the Republican Party to sink further into irrelevancy as long as its key players insist on hanging around Congress or K Street for their ideas. The future for the GOP is beyond the Beltway.

 

[tomahawk6]

Any third party would have to get alot of existing members of Congress to switch to have any immediate effect. This is why the existing Republican Party has to be the vehicle for a new evolution. If the party is to be relevant it needs to become the conservative party. People that dont agree with conservative principles can be democrats which may not seem attractive as increasingly ,it is becoming the party of karl marx.

 

[a_majoor]

While I agree in practical terms that is probably the most probable route T6, I should also point out that the Whigs, the Federalists (or for Canadians) the Progressives (or for Britons) the Liberal Unionists and many other political parties never conceived of how far or fast they would fall, despite their impressive histories, organizations and "name brand" recognition.

In the mean time, we have this to look forward to. We can already see the digging in process as the Progressives try to cement their hold on power with such tactics as re imposing the "Fairness Doctrine" on radio and the Internet, using ACORN to skew census data for reallocation of congressional districts and gathering more economic power in order to limit the options of all Americans:

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/04/relax-dems-will-screw-up.html

Relax, The Dems Will Screw Up

It would be very easy to fall into a depression over Arlen Specter switching political parties, giving Democrats a likely filibuster-proof Senate majority. The result will be that Obama will be able to push through much of his agenda without meaningful debate.

Not that I will miss Specter personally. Specter has become a caricature of the self-interested politician who hides his need for fame behind lofty talk of principles. More than anything, I feel sorry for Specter at a personal level, because we are watching someone going through his last hurrah. And the fact that he sold out the principles he spoke about just weeks ago regarding preserving the two-party system, demonstrates how pathetic Specter has become in his quest for a legacy. Unfortunately for Specter, his legacy will not be what he thinks it will be.

It would be easy to be depressed, until you read this snippet from history, as reported by the Politico:
The last time either party had such a wide Senate margin was during the first two years of Jimmy Carter’s term in 1977-1978, when Democrats under then-Majority Leader Robert Byrd held 61 seats.
What history shows us is that a liberal, blame-America-first Democratic President, urged on by a liberal, blame-America-first Democratic Congress, is a prescription for political self-destruction. Leave Democrats to their own devices, and they will screw themselves politically, just when they are at the height of power.

We already see this phenomenon in action:

As to national security, Congressional Democrats are pushing for hearings and prosecutions of the authors of memos interpreting the federal anti-torture statute. These hearings will cause enormous damage to the country, reminiscent of the damage caused to intelligence agencies by the Church commission in the 1970s. We don't know when the risks to which we are exposed turn into an attack, but it will happen because, as the 9/11 commission noted, al-Qaeda is at war with us, regardless of whether we are at war with it.

As to foreign affairs, China, Venezuela and Iran will rise in power and influence as Democrats fulfill their dream of returning the United States to its isolationist roots. The result will be that hundreds of millions of people who yearn to live in free societies will have to defer that hope for another generation or two.

As to the national debt, in a year or two the nation will wake up to the fact that Democrats have mortgaged our future to the hilt, beyond what anyone could have comprehended a year ago. When the younger generations, currently smitten with the cool President, realize that they will pay this bill, there will be a backlash. And when they see mortgage rates and inflation put the good life out of their reach, the younger generation will embrace Reaganism as the cure for the Democratic disease.

As to human rights, in the quest for revenge against the Bush administration under the guise of obtaining justice for three high-level al-Qaeda operatives who were waterboarded, we will ensure that al-Qaeda lives on to spread true torture throughout the world. The human rights and Democratic interest groups who are silent when al-Qaeda uses teenagers or pregnant women to blow up other teenagers and pregnant women are relegating tens of thousands of people to al-Qaeda terror, without so much as a second thought. For that, we will not earn the friendship the Democrats desire, but an ignoble page in history, along with Neville Chamberlain.

As to government control of private industry, government control will see the final death of the American
automobile industry. Those who fret that the federal government is converting its loans to voting equity on a preferential basis are missing the big picture. Government running the auto industry will be the end of the auto industry.

As to health care, Americans will realize that nationalized health care will be no more successful than in Canada or Britain. Americans who are upset by waiting a couple of hours in a doctor's office will go berserk over waiting weeks or months for surgical procedures. And that fury will be more pronounced than in Canada or Britain, because we will have no traditional American health care system to fall back on.

As to freedom of speech, the continued and obsessive use of the race card by Democrats and Hollywood elites will cause a simmering resentment which will boil over into retribution in the voting booth. The use of false accusations of racism as a political weapon to silence debate is the least understood, and by far the most corrosive, result of the 2008 election cycle.

So I'm not depressed about the long-term future of the country, although the next few years will be tough politically. The Democrats will screw up big time, as they did during the Carter years, and the damage they cause will be generational. But the clean-up is worth looking forward to, even if the mess is not

Edit to update with link and article

 

[tomahawk6]

Alot of ways to mess things up for the average American. So far Obama has been able to avoid being linked  to his administrations failures. In response to poll questions americans hate his policies but like the man. At some point though that cannot continue. The policies will become too onerous to ignore. The good aspect of Arlen going back to becoming a democrat the dem's cannot blame the republicans for being obstructionists as they will have at least 60 seats [more like 61 when Franken is sworn in] and there could be more moderate Rrepublicans switching parties as well.

 

[a_majoor]

The New York flyover has results.....

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/campaigns/rich-businessman-sinks-bucks-into-attacking-obama-over-flyover-snafu/

Rich Businessman Sinks Bucks Into Attacking Obama Over Flyover Snafu

A wealthy Obama donor who turned on the president is launching an attack on Obama over the Air Force One flyover screw-up, linking it to his big spending policies, an assault that may involve radio and TV ads in a preview of what to expect in the 2010 midterm elections.

The donor, businessman Fred Tausch of New Hampshire, announced in February he’d be sinking some $100,000 into assaults on Obama. Now he’s adding the flyover snafu to his list of grievances, tying it to “wasteful spending” in a direct mail piece sent out to his state’s voters (click to enlarge):

The group Tausch founded to attack Obama, Steward For Prosperity, may bankroll radio and TV ads along the same lines.

With New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg saying he’ll retire and John Sununu uncertain whether he’ll run again, Tausch is being talked about seriously in some quarters as a GOP candidate for Senate. So this is a preview of what we may see from 2010 Republican candidates in New Hampshire and elsewhere who want to take Obama down a few notches to limit whatever lift he can give to the Dem candidates.

 

[CougarKing]

Sarah Palin resigns from her governor's position, though the question now on everyone's mind is whether this will improve her chances for a political future at higher positions, like the oval office, if at all.

ABC News link

 

[a_majoor]

Jerry Pournelle on Sarah Palin:

The other major news is Sarah Palin's decision to get the hell out before the politicians destroy her. There's a lot of speculation about whether she intends to run for President in 2012. I think that the probability of success now that she has resigned as governor is so small as to make it exceedingly unlikely.

She's broke, she can't raise money to pay off her legal bills and still be independent of lobbyists, David Leatherman can joke about her daughter getting knocked up at a baseball game, there is no hint that the "ethics investigations" which require expensive legal defense will cease, and as far as I can see she's just tired of the whole thing. She has the ability to draw crowds and she has a natural instinct for doing the right thing. She's not an Ivy League graduate. She's not an intellectual but she's smart enough to learn about issues. When people do look at her they try to compare her to Ronald Reagan, which is perhaps unfair at this stage of her career. It would make more sense to compare her to Joe Biden. They ran for the same office.

For a number of reasons she became the target of an attack machine that has apparently succeeded in driving her out of public life. She'll make use of her celebrity status to raise some money, pay some debts, and try to set up her family income to allow some future choices, but I suspect she she will slowly fade out of the national scene. We will be the poorer for it. One might contemplate what happened to her while reflecting on what we mean by democracy. Would Leatherman still be on the air had he cracked jokes about one of Obama's daughters? Or even about Katie Cooric's daughter? Or Tina Fey's daughter?

Andrew Jackson was a militia commander who had little education, and was not part of the colonial elite. He rose through merit and good luck to become the first "democratic" President, the people's president. He made mistakes. The comparison to Palin is tempting. She would certainly have been as good a senator as many we have in that august body, even if they are better "qualified" in having elitist credentials. And of course most professional politicians are far richer than the Palins.

I am hardly astonished that the mother of a Down's Syndrome child, with a son in the war zone, a single mother daughter (and there's a story we don't need to know), mounting debts, and no sign of relief would call it quits. Fighting the Chicago machine from Juneau is more than she wants to face.
I doubt that democracy has been well served by driving her from public life. I also doubt that this will be the last such incident.

I suspect that this will only encourage hordes of Progressive "Brownshirts" to go after other politicians and anyone who show the ability or courage to make their opinions known and organize others. Don't think we are immune either (and we have official organs of the state like the CHRC, CRTC and CBC to ensure only the "right" voices get heard and others are silenced....)