U.S. 2012 Election

[a_majoor]

It increasingly seems the political contest is actually between "We, the People" and an arrogent and disconnected political class:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/07/026783.php

A Dangerous Disaffection

Share Post  PrintJuly 17, 2010 Posted by John at 6:26 PM

Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed; that is a foundational principle of our republic. To a stunning degree, however, Americans don't believe that their own government meets that standard. Scott Rasmussen finds that only 23 percent of voters believe that "the federal government today has the consent of the governed." A remarkable 62 percent of voters say that our government does not enjoy that consent.

How can this be, given our seemingly free and vibrant democracy? I think there are two main reasons, one specific to our present political environment and one more general.

The immediate cause is the fact that the Obama administration and its Congressional allies have embarked on an ambitious, left-wing program that seeks to transform America into a country quite different from what most Americans want. Elections have consequences, as the Democrats never tire of telling us. The problem is that the Democrats, most notably Barack Obama, did not run on the divisive, far-left program they are now trying to implement. Obama postured himself as a rather centrist, post-racial figure. His style as President has been the opposite.

So it is no wonder that most Americans believe they have gotten a government that they didn't vote for.

I think the more significant cause, however, is the general one--a growing conviction that America is governed by a political class that has its own agenda, involving its own enrichment as well as the endless expansion of its own power, and that this political class is contemptuous of the opinions of ordinary Americans and is determined to impose its will regardless of how Americans vote. I think this perception is in fact true.

The strongest evidence is the history of federal spending in the modern era, which began in the 1960s. Here it is, in constant dollars; click to enlarge:



There have been several occasions when the American people have voted for smaller government; most notably in 1972, 1980 and 1994. But it really doesn't matter. You can vote for limited government, but you can't get it; the political class won't let you. This is not to assert the silly proposition that there is no major difference between Democrats and Republicans. The fiscal disaster that we have witnessed since the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 proves the contrary. But still: experience shows that voting for Republicans hasn't been enough to offset the power of the political class.

The main currents of our contemporary politics involve ordinary citizens rebelling against their masters in the political class. While by no means the only manifestation of this rebellion, the Tea Party movement is the most notable. What has happened to the Tea Party is instructive. It was first ignored, then ridiculed. Agents of the status quo like news services, newspapers, network news operations and the NAACP have been enlisted to lodge absurd charges of "racism" against Americans who protest out-of-control government spending. The Empire is striking back.

It remains to be seen whether the American people can finally break the grip of a political class that remains determined to run their lives and misappropriate trillions of dollars of their wealth. It will be, I think, a close-run thing. In the meantime, there is no mystery as to why most Americans do not regard the federal government as legitimate in Jeffersonian terms.

UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds offers advice on fighting back against the ruling class.

 

[a_majoor]

And people are openly talking and thinking about the next step if the political class cannot be removed by electoral means (or uses the powers of the State to maintain thier hold on the wealth and privilages they can extort from taxpayers

http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/        19 July 2010

WHAT TO DO? In response to this piece by Angelo Codevilla on America’s ruling class, readers wonder what to do. Well, a few things suggest themselves.

First: Mockery. They are very mockable, and they are very thin-skinned. That leads them to erupt in embarrassing ways. Use their sense of entitlement against them.

Second (and related): Transparency. One-party government makes you stupid, and although composed of both Democrats and Republicans the political class is basically its own party, and these people are pretty stupid. Point it out, repeatedly. Use FOIA, ubiquitous videocameras, and other tools to make the stupidity show.

Third: Money. Codevilla writes: “Our ruling class’s agenda is power for itself. While it stakes its claim through intellectual-moral pretense, it holds power by one of the oldest and most prosaic of means: patronage and promises thereof.” The coming budget crisis — already here, really, but still largely denied by the rulers — is an opportunity to defund a lot of this patronage stuff. They’ll try, of course, to cut the muscle and preserve the fat, but that won’t work very well if they’re closely watched (see above). Cut them off in other ways, too. Don’t support the media, nonprofits, and politicians who support them with your money.

Also, make sure that money flows TO things you like: Businesses, alt-media, politicians who aren’t part of the problem, etc. Build up countervailing institutions that don’t depend on the government to survive.

Fourth: Organize and infiltrate. Take over party apparats from the ground up. Create your own organizations that can focus sustained attention — the “ruling class” relies on others having short attention spans while it stays focused on amassing and protecting power.

Finally: Don’t act like a subject. Rulers like subjects. Don’t be one. As a famous man once said: Get in their face. Punch back twice as hard. Words for the coming decade?

UPDATE: Reader Stephen Clark writes:
All the things you’ve listed are good. However, one of the most important is to get involved with politics. Local and state politics are the most accessible to citizen movements. Take advantage of that. This is one of the most important features of the Tea Party movement, in my opinion. Many of these organizations are focusing as much on local and state party apparatus as on the higher profile national offices and races. Local and state government is, or at least can be, the defense in depth needed to take on the class and its ambitions described in Codevilla’s piece. As he makes clear, this is not the work of a few election cycles.

A few other items I would add to your list: Get to know your representatives and their staffs well and make sure they know you. Don’t fall for the suggestion that the task of government has grown so very complicated that only professional legislators and staff are fit to govern. Apart from being self-serving on its face, it’s a damn good argument for cutting back and decentralizing the tasks of government at all levels. Frequent changes in legislative seats not only can bring fresh faces and new ideas, it builds a reservoir of talent and knowledge that can augment that defense in depth meant to keep representatives on a very short leash.

Indeed. And let’s be honest — the claim that only “professional legislators and staff” are smart enough falls apart once you meet a few of these people.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Andrew Wharton emails: “Be armed, both intellectually and especially with guns. The ruling class hates it, but more importantly, it mitigates their baser instincts.” Yes, they’ll do whatever they can get away with, so it’s important to be sure they can’t get away with too much.

MORE: Reader Joan Varga writes:
What to do? Have a back-up plan for your information web. Do we really think that the powers that be will allow us unfettered access to information for much longer? What’s our plan for staying in touch, for finding out, for gathering information, for disseminating information after the Internet becomes too big to fail and too sweet for Obama to resist?

Why we aren’t taking over television stations and Hollywood studios is beyond me. They did it in the 60’s because they knew where real power comes from. Focusing on politicians and politics is not going to win the day.

You answer audacity with something more audacious. And “serious” people will be trampled by the mewling mob of gored oxes and spoiled public sector unions.

Hmm.

MORE: Steve White of Rantburg writes:
A practical application of the point made by reader Joan Varga today was seen last year in Tehran. When the Mad Mullahs of Iran wanted to shut down the anti-government demonstrations, they did everything they could to interfere with cell phones, internet service, and Twitter. It largely worked, too, not that the western press pointed it out at the time.

A backup plan for communication for the day that the government becomes serious about stifling the free flow of information is a good idea, because if push comes to shove our ‘ruling class’ will indeed lock down communications. It might not be as abrupt as what happened in Tehran, either, it might be cloaked instead in a serious of interlocking decisions such as ‘network neutrality’, anti-porn, anti-hate speech, and so on. They have ways.

Well, this isn’t Iran, and there’s no Revolutionary Guard here. But backup plans are always good. There’s always ham radio, and probably a lot more out there. I believe some geeks are working on this.

STILL MORE: Reader Donald Golgert writes:
his piece finally codified what I’ve been seeing/feeling/living for some time now. I’ve been uncomfortable with Republican politicians and hated the Democrats as a whole.

I’ve done two things.

I’m now the Republican PCO for my precinct. I’ll attempt to fix the problems from inside. At 46, I’m the youngest acknowledged (out?) Republican in my very blue district in Seattle.

I’ve launched a Cafe Press store. The 1st design is built on the phrase “Depose the Ruling Class”. More to follow. Snarkier to be sure. Mockery laden even.

Snark and mockery?

MORE STILL: Reader John Steakley writes:
The founding fathers had the idea of checks and balances before parties emerged. Parties undermine C&B because we can’t expect the White House to keep Congress in check (or vice-versa) when they are both of the same party.

We need a third party (or maybe a fourth, too) dedicated SOLELY to either Congress or the White House. Let’s call them the “White House Party” and the “Capitol Party.” Each one fields candidates only for that branch of government, immunizing themselves of influence peddling from another branch. They could openly campaign against the excesses and abuses of the other branch, free from fear of party retribution.

Can you imagine the power a President would have if he could truly serve as a check and balance on Congress regardless of which party controlled it without fear of losing votes in the upcoming election? Can you imagine the power Congress would have if controlled by a party with no eye on the White House?

Since the third branch – Judicial – is unelected, the Supreme Court candidates would, by definition, have to be approved by BOTH parties.

Hmm.

 

[a_majoor]

An interesting discussion on why the Obama administration does what it does. (I suspect they will not choose to follow the prescriptive advice on how to govern in a bipartisan fashion). The very narrow coalition of voters and interests who voted for this administration will find it harder to keep their hold on power given the rather large coalition of voters and interests who are assembling for the Mid-terms and the 2012 election.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/242720/obamas-blunder-jonah-goldberg

Obama’s Blunder
August 07, 2010 5:12 PM By Jonah Goldberg     
In February, I wrote:

If there’s a single event for which Obama himself is to blame, one decision that explains his predicament, it is his mishandling of the stimulus at the dawn of his administration. Put aside the debate over whether it has “worked,” and forget the White House’s absurd trick of talking about jobs “saved or created” (for the record, I save or create 500 push-ups every morning). Obama made a rookie mistake outsourcing his first major domestic policy decision to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the Old Bulls of the Democratic Party, and that blunder has done lasting damage to his presidency.

This time last year, there was a wide and deep consensus that the country needed a second stimulus (President Bush’s first one of $152 billion was thrown down the memory hole). Many Republicans, licking their wounds after successive drubbings at the polls and fearful that prophecies of a generation “in the wilderness” might prove true, were either eager to side with the popular new president or were at least resigned to the fact that they might have to, particularly if Obama was going to honor his commitments to bipartisan governance. According to Gallup, Obama started with an initial approval rate of near 70% (a whopping 83% of Americans approved his transition efforts). When the public is divided 70%-30% in favor of something, most politicians like to be on the side of 70%.

Politically, the stimulus offered the president a chance to break the back of the GOP, while at the same time fulfilling his promise to transcend the gridlock and partisanship of recent years. If he had offered something close to half-a-loaf to Republicans at the time, he wouldn’t have won total GOP support, but he would have gotten a sizable chunk of their votes — enough for the White House to claim a real bipartisan victory and force a Republican buy-in to Obama’s agenda. The climate going into the 2010 elections might look very different if the Republican Party had an ownership stake in Obama’s economic policies.

Responding to Robert Reich, the always insightful Jay Cost fleshes out and explores similar terrain in a very interesting piece that provides a deeper context. A long excerpt (but read the whole thing):

In fact, if you look at presidential elections going back 100 years, Obama’s is the most geographically narrow of any victors except Carter, Kennedy, and Truman – none of whom had transformative presidencies. Even Bill Clinton in 1996, whose share of the two-party vote was comparable to Obama’s, still had a geographically broader voting coalition. Ditto George H.W. Bush in 1988.

Voting input inevitably determines policy output, and these maps hold the key to Reich’s disappointment with the President. In our system, it’s not just the number of votes that matter, but – thanks to Roger Sherman – how they are distributed across the several states. Obama’s urban support base was sufficient for political success in the House, which passed a very liberal health care bill last November. But rural places have greater sway in the Senate – and Obama’s weakness in rural America made for a half-dozen skittish Democrats who represent strong McCain states. The evolving thinking on the left – “Obama should have used his campaign-trail magic to change the political dynamic” – is thus totally misguided. The “remarkable capacities he displayed during the 2008 campaign” never persuaded the constituents of the red state Democrats he had to win over. Why should they suddenly start doing so now?

Obama simply lacked the broad appeal to guide the House’s liberal proposal through the Senate. So, the result of “going big” was an initially liberal House product that then had to be watered down to win over red state Senators like Landrieu, Lincoln, Nelson, and Pryor. The end result was a compromise bill that, frankly, nobody really liked. Liberals were disappointed, tantalized as they were by the initial House product. Conservatives were wholly turned off, recognizing as they did that the guts of the bill were still liberal. And Independents and soft partisans were disgusted by congressional sausage-making and wary of the bill’s provisions.

Was there an alternative approach the President could have taken? I think so. Such a tactic would have acknowledged the sizeable McCain bloc. McCain won 22 states, making his coalition a politically potent minority. Obama should have governed in light of this. I don’t mean in hock to it. He didn’t have to make Sarah Palin his domestic policy advisor, but he should have ignored the hagiographers who were quick to declare him the next FDR. These flatterers always manifest themselves anytime a new Democrat comes to the White House, and they are of very little help for Democratic Presidents who actually want to be great.

What he should have done instead was disarm his opponents. If he had built initial policy proposals from the middle, he could have wooed the moderate flank of the Republican party, marginalized the conservatives, and alleviated the concerns of those gettable voters in the South and the Midwest….

 

[a_majoor]

Another trope for smart right wing politicians to run with:

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2010/08/bush-tax-cuts.html

Bush Tax Cuts... for the poor and middle class:

According to Treasury, the total ten-year cost of completely extending the Bush tax cuts is $3.675 trillion. The ten-year cost exclusively associated with extending tax cuts to folks Obama, the Democrats, and the media consider rich is $679 billion.

This means that almost $3 trillion of the cost associated with the Bush tax cuts over the next ten years, or 82 percent, is not for benefits to the so-called rich.

As such, despite what the Left and their media minions have been claiming, 82 percent of the Bush tax cuts benefited the poor, middle-class, and upper-middle class in this country.

 

[a_majoor]

A look at the upcoming mid terms. How they play out will also determine the course of this Administration, the US and global economy, foreign policy etc. One thing I find odd is while the Dems are in trouble according to the polls, the Republicans don't seem to have a coherent message. Without this sort of groundwork, I suspect they will manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The TEA party has managed to take over a few of the races, taking over what we would call riding committees and fielding their own candidates, but not on the scale this article would indicate is called for (go to link to see the maps):

http://pajamasmedia.com/vodkapundit/2010/08/18/running-scared/?singlepage=true

Running Scared
August 18, 2010 - by Stephen Green

We’ve been wargaming the coming Congressional shakeup for a few months now, but today let’s do something a little different — make it visual. Courtesy of 270toWin, here’s what the current Congress looks like.

There’s an awful lot of blue on that map, especially given that the Democrats get a disproportionate amount of their support from tiny, densely-packed urban districts. But that’s what happens when you have a 255-178 majority.

Next, let’s wipe the map clean. And instead of predicting the outcome of each race, let’s take the poll-averaging data from Real Clear Politics and color in only the Toss Up races.

What might shock you is, when Congress have approval ratings barely in the double digits, that there are only 31 super-competitive races. Such is the advantage of incumbency. And there is one speck of GOP red on this map — IL-10, the only Republican-held seat rated as a toss-up. But it’s this next map that ought to shock you.

What I’ve done here is to expand our coverage outward, one step to the left (to cover the races Leaning Democrat) and another step to the right (to cover the races Leaning GOP). Take a look — you really need to click on this map and see it full size to get the full effect.

Look at all that blue. There are 84 races where the Democrats need to worry, and only seven for the GOP. And one of those seats (HI-01) is red only because of that fluke special election in Hawaii a couple months back, where multiple Dem candidates split the vote.

Also note that there is not one region in the country where the Democrats aren’t on defense — except for ubergerrymandered California. When the pundits tell you that 2010 isn’t like 1994, they’re right, but not for the reasons they tell you. The big GOP gains in ‘94 were in large part due to the finalization of the Solid South’s long march from blue to red. This time, the Democrats show significant weakness in the South, the Southeast, the industrial Midwest, the Mid Atlantic states, and in pretty big swathes of the Northeast. Even New Hampshire looks like it’s poised to return to return to the Republican fold.

So a total of 91 seats are in play right now. The Democrats have serious disadvantages in 52 of them, and must commit resources to defend a further 27. In a stark contrast, the GOP has three seats in trouble and another 3 in need of shoring up. Put that way, the Democrats’ cash advantage doesn’t look quite so fearsome.

I’ll keep the maps updated as we move closer to the election, along with a new view I’d like to try out next time around.

 

[tomahawk6]

All of the Republican candidates will tie their opponents voting record like a millstone around their necks. The dem's are toast in November the only question is how bad will it be ? I have seen estimates of anywhere from 35 to 80. Either way Pelosi is done as Speaker and will probably be voted Minority Leader. Alot of the public isnt buying what the dem's are selling.

 

[GAP]

Don't underestimate the stupidity of the voting public.....

 

[a_majoor]

While I know you are far better connected to the mood in the US than I, there are a few questions that trouble me about this thing:

1. Even "Blue" states have the Dem vote concentrated in the cities. The Dem voting record might resonate with that class of voter ("see, we brought you FREE healthcare!"). This might actually entrench them deeper and allow them to retain "Blue" states.

2. One word: ACORN. Widespread voter fraud, questionable election fundraising and other acts to distort the vote in favour of the Democrat party will certainly take place. Will it tip the balance?

3. Alternatives: What is the Republican party offering to the voters other than "We're not Dems"? At least the TEA party movement is against big government in general and willing to kick out Republican politicians of the RINO variety as well as taking on the Democrat party as a whole. This alone might upset the sort of political calculations expressed in this and other articles; will the TEA party act as a spoiler and allow Democrat candidates to run up the middle? (Even TEA party members sitting out elections since they support "none of the above" could tip the balance).

4. Narrative. The legacy media invested heavily in getting this administration elected and cheerleading its policies (and mudslinging against any real or imagined opposition). Will they double down to keep from looking like they were suckered in 2008? Since the majority of people still get their news and opinions from the Legacy media,  can this tip the balance?

Remember, the "Mandate" of the Obama administration was only about 2% of the popular vote, so it would not take too much to keep and hold the electoral ground (and elections to the House and Senate are by popular vote, not through the Electoral College).

Things to think about.

 

[ModlrMike]

A group to watch are the "swing voters". Those who in the last election voted for Obama solely because he wasn't Bush. Will they return to their former home with the Republicans?

 

[tomahawk6]

According to the polls the independents are fleeing the democrats. It was independents that put Obama in the White House and it will be independents that turn out the democrats. The dem's have drifted too far to the left for most of the public. In an off year election they wont be able to energize their base. 2012 will be interesting because like this year it will be all about the economy. Obama will blame a republican congress and the republicans will be pointing fingers at the White House. If the republicans win they will have to try and roll back the radical Obama agenda. Only a third of the stimulus has been spent it would be vital to send that money back to the treasury. If Obama veto's the bill the republicans will have to garner enough votes to overturn the veto. I wish I could press the fast forward button.

 

[CougarKing]

Associated Press link


McCain likely to turn back tea party challenge

1 hour, 45 minutes ago

By The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Voters weighed the merits of establishment candidates against outsiders Tuesday, as Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee who took a hard turn to the right in a bid for a fifth Senate term, faced a primary challenge from a conservative talk radio personality.


The Arizona election was one of five state primaries where voters chose party candidates for November balloting nationwide that could end Democrats' majority hold on the House of Representatives and, perhaps, the Senate.


The primary season that has tested the strength of insurgent campaigns. With Americans in a sour mood over the down economy and unemployment at nearly 10 per cent, outsiders — especially those aligned with or belonging to the amorphous, hard right tea party movement — already have swept away some incumbents.


McCain, however, went into the vote with a healthy lead in the polls over tea-party-backed former Rep. J.D. Hayworth.


The challenge from party's right wing prompted McCain, who has a long history of bucking the conservative establishment, to toss aside his self-described "maverick" label. He adopted a hard-line stand on immigration just a few years after working with Democrats on a path to citizenship for those in the country illegally. "Complete the danged fence," he says in a campaign ad, three years after dismissing the effectiveness of building a fence on the U.S.-Mexico border.


McCain's 2008 running mate, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, was trying to help a tea party-backed candidate in her home state. Joe Miller's upstart Republican primary bid against Lisa Murkowski looked like a long shot, but it didn't scare away Palin.


"He's got the backbone to confront Obama's radical agenda," Palin said in a recorded call to voters.


McCain and Murkowski virtually ensure their re-elections with primary victories; no Democrats are considered serious challengers.


Palin has become a de facto leader of the ultraconservative tea party movement in its bid to unseat incumbents. However, she endorsed McCain, who elevated her to the national stage by making her his surprise vice-presidential pick two years ago.


In previous primaries this year, voters have shown both a readiness to fire veteran lawmakers and a willingness to keep them.


The tea party has had mixed success. It won big in Nevada, Kentucky, Colorado and Utah Republican Senate contests but lost just about everywhere else.


But no matter Tuesday's outcomes, there's no question that the tea party and Palin have provided an enormous dose of enthusiasm for Republicans heading into the fall campaign. And that's dangerous for a dispirited Democratic base.


In the race for an open Arizona seat in the House, vacated by retiring Republican Rep. John Shadegg, drew 10 party hopefuls, including Ben Quayle, son of former Vice-President Dan Quayle.

Quayle drew much attention to his campaign when he called Obama the worst president in American history. It also was disclosed that he once wrote for an adult Web site, tarnishing his attempts to align himself with Republican family values campaigns.


In Florida, former health care executive Rick Scott was locked in a hard fought Republican gubernatorial campaign with state Attorney General Bill McCollum, who said voters have not been swayed by his opponent's outlay of $39 million of his own money to blanket the state with commercials, most attacking McCollum.


The winner will face Florida chief financial officer Alex Sink, who won her Democratic primary.


Washington-backed Rep. Kendrick Meek beat billionaire and real estate businessman Jeff Greene, who has spent lavishly from his fortune and forced Meek to drain his campaign coffers.

Meek will face Republican Marco Rubio and Gov. Charlie Crist, the Republican who turned independent in face of the Rubio tea party juggernaut.

 

 

[tomahawk6]

Looks like Miller won in a close race in Alaska. Right now he is up 51.8%-48%. A 2300 vote lead.

 

[Rifleman62]

Warning of New Disease to hit the USA in the Fall of 2010

Information about Gonorrhea Lectim (Democratis strain)

The US Center for Disease Control has issued a warning about a new virulent strain of this old disease.

The disease is called Gonorrhea Lectim. It's pronounced "Gonna re-elect 'em," and it is a terrible affliction.

The disease is contracted through dangerous and high risk behavior involving putting your cranium up your rectum.

Many victims contracted it in 2008...but it is only now that most people, after having been infected for the past few years, are starting to realize how destructive this sickness is.

It's sad because Gonorrhea Lectim is easily cured with a new drug just coming on the market called Votemout, pronounced ‘Vote them out”.

You take the first dose in 2010 (economy variant) and the second dose in 2012 and simply don't engage in such behavior again; otherwise, it could become permanent and eventually wipe out all life as we know it.

Most states are already on top of this, like many in the south, and apparently now in the east, with many more seeing the writing on the wall.

Note: You can substitute LieLiberals, Ontario, etc  if you wish!

 

[a_majoor]

A look ahead. Governor Palin will be a very powerful force over the next two election cycles regardless of her Presidential aspirations, this will be interesting to watch.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/08/027090.php

The Tea Party movement and 2012
 
August 26, 2010 Posted by Paul at 8:29 PM

In view of the success the Tea Party Express has enjoyed in the Republican candidate selection process this year, it's worth asking how that movement might influence the selection of a Republican nominee for president in 2012. Here are some preliminary thoughts:

1. The Republican presidential field is likely to be crowded in 2012, with at least as many plausible-to-strong contenders as it contained in 2008. If nothing else, the perception of Obama's vulnerability will likely attract most, if not all, of the widely-mentioned candidates, plus others who may not be on most people's radar.

2. In a crowded field, a candidate can become the front-runner by capturing around one-third of the vote in early primaries. John McCain did it in 2008 with 38 percent in New Hampshire (where, if I recall correctly, Rudy Giuliani did not actively campaign and Fred Thompson barely participated), 33 percent in South Carolina, 36 percent in Florida, and 30 percent in Michigan (where he finished second).

3. There may well be states in which a candidate could make major headway towards these kinds of numbers on just the strength of a unified Tea Party movement.

4. The Tea Party movement might even be more influential in caucus states because the relative importance of sheer intensity is greatest in these states.

5. The Tea Party has been most influential in Western states (e.g., Nevada, Colorado, and Alaska). In 2008, Western states tended not to have super-early primaries/caucuses (Nevada was an exception). Thus, these states did not play a major role in the nomination process.

6. But even in many non-Western states, the Tea Party should be a significant force in 2012 - one capable of giving an attractive candidate a big running start towards 33 percent of the vote, or whatever relatively low number will constitute the bar.

7. Sarah Palin is the candidate around whom the Tea Party probably could most easily coalesce. Miitt Romney doesn't strike me as a Tea Party kind of guy, and that's not even taking Romney-care into account. Mike Huckabee might be attractive to the Tea Party movement in some ways, but his record as Arkansas governor should pose a problem for a small government oriented movement. Newt Gingrich is a former Washington insider. Tim Pawlenty and other successful governors may come across as too pragmatic. Palin, as far as I can tell, doesn't answer to any of these off-putting descriptions.

8. The prospect of riding a Tea Party wave may provide Palin with an extra incentive to run for president, if she needs one.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail is an interesting assessment of the threat the Tea Party movement poses to the GOP:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/konrad-yakabuski/republicans-caught-in-the-honour-system/article1688432/

Republicans caught in the ‘honour’ system
Tea Partiers pose dilemma for GOP: they help discredit Obama, but movement could also backfire horribly

Konrad Yakabuski

Washington — From Saturday's Globe and Mail

When Virginia Summers joins thousands of other Tea Partiers pledging to restore America’s honour at a mega-rally in the capital, she will also be reminding anxious Republicans that the 18-month-old movement that has so upended the U.S. political order is not done with them yet.

“The people I know, I don’t think we’re going to stop,” insisted the 53-year-old housewife from suburban Richmond, Va., whose local Tea Party group is sending 15 busloads of members to Saturday’s event. “A lot of us are as unhappy with many of the Republican incumbents as we are with the Democrats. There is just too much government controlling our lives.”

It is easy to see why the Republican establishment has been anticipating the Restoring Honor rally at the Lincoln Memorial – organized by Fox News provocateur Glenn Beck – with a mixture of butterfly-laced excitement and acute indigestion.

Leaderless and idea-challenged, the Republican Party owes its phoenix rise from the post-2008 ashes to the emergence of the Tea Party as the unofficial opposition to President Barack Obama and his Democrats. If the GOP can credibly entertain hopes of winning Congress this fall, it is thanks to a base that has been energized by Tea Party anger and idealism. That enthusiasm will make all the difference in the Nov. 2 midterm vote.

It could also backfire terribly. Though the Tea Party movement has mostly purged its openly bigoted elements, it remains a volatile and undisciplined force. Stoked by Mr. Beck’s penchant for pamphleteer politics, Saturday’s event could just as easily mobilize Democrats and independent voters disgusted with this unseemly turn in the national conversation.

Such is the ambivalence among GOP leaders that no major Republican other than Sarah Palin has agreed to endorse the rally or participate in it. (Ms. Palin is doing both.) Secretly, at least, top Republicans would like nothing more than to see the Tea Party movement peter out. With the economy sputtering and confidence in the Obama administration waning among white, middle-class voters, the GOP may no longer need the adrenalin rush of the Tea Party to win in November.

For all of the Tea Party’s usefulness to the GOP in discrediting the Obama agenda, Republican leaders know their party’s identification with the movement could become an obstacle to its longer-term electoral success. Besides, even if Republicans win in November, they know the movement will quickly turn on them when they fail to deliver on its impracticable demands for radically downsized government.

For now, however, the congregations of Americans who have come together in loosely connected local Tea Party chapters, or formed a neighbourhood 9-12 group (vowing homage to the nine principles and 12 values set out by Mr. Beck), are dictating the terms of political debate.

“At the local level, Tea Party and 9-12 groups are managing to move the discussion to the right,” notes Andrew Downs, a political science professor at Indiana University-Purdue University in Fort Wayne, Ind. “In districts that are competitive, there will be a more conservative lean than in other years.”

This is a crucial point in understanding the midterm election campaign, since the U.S. electoral map largely consists of heavily gerrymandered congressional districts that concentrate Democratic support in urban centres. Republicans do not need to win the popular vote to retake control of the House of Representatives. They just need to sweep 40 of roughly 75 House seats that are truly up for grabs.

In Virginia’s 5th Congressional District that spans the south-central part of the state, even first-term incumbent Democrat Tom Periello has been feverishly (and perhaps just as futilely) courting Tea Party support. At a Thursday meeting of the Jefferson Area Tea Party near Charlottesville, Va., Mr. Periello happily agreed with the audience that Mr. Obama’s Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, should be fired.

“Let’s face it, the guy started out of the gate in a way that was distasteful to a whole lot of us,” Mr. Periello conceded in reference to Mr. Geithner’s handling of the bank bailouts, economic recovery and his own personal taxes.

If Virginia’s 5th is representative of the districts were the Tea Party is likely to crown the winner in November, the movement’s influence in state-wide senatorial races could turn out to be a handicap for Republicans.

There is no denying the extraordinary influence of Tea Partiers in knocking off establishment candidates in GOP Senate primaries in six states, even ousting the incumbent senator in Utah. The Tea Party’s use of social media to raise money nationally for outlier candidates such as Rand Paul in Kentucky and Sharron Angle in Nevada allowed those candidates to take on the GOP machine dollar-for-dollar and win their primaries.

The same phenomenon is unfolding in Alaska, where Palin-backed Tea Party favourite Joe Miller leads incumbent GOP Senator Lisa Murkowski in a primary battle that won’t be settled until the last absentee ballots are counted in early September. And even though John McCain prevailed in his Arizona primary this week in spite of a campaign by national Tea Party groups to unseat him, he did so only by veering sharply to the right and spending $23-million (U.S.) – or about $82 per vote.

Mr. McCain and Mr. Miller, should he win his primary, are almost certain to win in the November general election, since they come from heavily Republican states. But choosing the Tea Party candidate to lead the Republican ticket could end up costing the GOP victories in Kentucky and Nevada and Florida. Mr. Paul, Ms. Angle and Marco Rubio in Florida are in tight races in which centrist voters will determine the winner.

Those voters could be turned off by the images of Tea Partiers that could emerge from Saturday’s Restoring Honor rally.

The event is billed by Mr. Beck as a tribute to American heroes – military folk and “other upstanding citizens who embody our nation’s founding principles of integrity, truth and honor.”

On his Web page devoted to the gathering, the one-man media conglomerate, whose right-wing indignation is criticized by some as simply a money-making gimmick, continues: “Our freedom is possible only if we remain virtuous. Help us restore the values that founded this great nation,”

If it sounds patriotic, Mr. Beck’s decision to hold the rally on the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s March on Washington, where he delivered his inimitable “I Have a Dream” speech, has many Republicans smelling a rat. Mr. Beck calls the timing “divine providence.” Black leaders call it a provocation. Rev. Al Sharpton is holding an event to commemorate the Dream speech, followed by a march to the site of the planned King memorial. Participants from the two events will inevitably cross paths.

Mr. Beck vows to use his event to “reclaim the civil rights movement.” It is a goal that resonates with many Tea Partiers. Mr. Beck and his ilk equate “equal rights” with individual responsibility and self-reliance. They question government programs aimed at helping the poor or minorities. They accuse liberals of twisting the constitutional meaning of equality to justify income redistribution and affirmative action.

No wonder Republican leaders have been awaiting Saturday with trepidation. They are grateful, at least, that Mr. Beck has asked participants to refrain from displaying signs at the event. As long as they co-operate, there should be no footage of angry Tea Partiers wielding placards with racist slogans for Democrats to use in fall campaign ads.

But if establishment Republicans would rather it just all go away, Ms. Summers has news for them. She’ll not stay quiet until or even after November. And neither will Mr. Beck.

I guess most people here know that I despise Glen Beck (I think he’s more of an idiot and, therefore, more dangerous to democracy than even mega-dimwit Lou Dobbs) and I think Sarah Palin is a national embarrassment to America. That being said, they have energized a highly active and committed ‘base’ that is unlikely to be friendly to anyone who fails to adhere, rigidly, to its populist, small government mantra.

Like Dobbs and Beck, the Tea Party has a small core of good, even right ideas, but, as with Dobbs and Beck, the few good ideas are too often hidden behind walls of rubbish and nonsense. It may be good politics but it makes for bad policy.

 

[Kirkhill]

And the covenanting puritans that overthrew the Stewarts burned a lot of witches before we ended up with Hanoverian democracy.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from CNN, is an analysis of Glen Beck’s rally that focuses on his ‘positioning’ as a (the?) new leader of the religious right. It must be borne in mind, by most Canadians, that there is one quite fundamental difference between Americans and Canadians: most Americans are religious, most Canadians are not. It is not cut and dried: there are many deeply religious, spiritually committed Canadians and there are many, many secular Americans but, broadly, Canada, rather like China and Western Europe – but less so, is secular and America, rather like the Islamic Crescent- but less so, is religious. Thus, while the ‘leadership’ of the religious right (or left for that matter) in Canada is pretty much irrelevant (it gets you what? The Christian Heritage Party and a few even smaller, more remote fringes?) in America the ‘leadership’ of the religious right does matter because we have seen what happens (2000 and 2004) when the religious right ‘gets out the vote’ and (2008) what happens when it ‘sits on its hands.’

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/28/at-rally-beck-positions-himself-as-new-leader-for-christian-conservatives/?hpt=C2

TRENDING: At rally, Beck positions himself as new leader for Christian conservatives

Among those surprised by all of conservative TV host Glenn Beck's recent religious talk - including at Saturday's Washington rally, where Beck said that "America today begins to turn back to God," - is the Rev. Richard Land, a Southern Baptist leader.

"I've been stunned," said Land, who directs public policy for the Southern Baptist Convention and who attended the Saturday rally at Beck's invitation.

"This guy's on secular radio and television," Land said Saturday, "but his shows sound like you're listening to the Trinity Broadcasting Network, only it's more orthodox and there's no appeal for money ... and today he sounded like Billy Graham."

Beck's speeches around his "Restoring Honor" rally have brimmed with religious language: "God dropped a giant sandbag on his head" to push him to organize the rally, he said Friday.

On Friday night, Beck held a religion-focused event at the Kennedy Center that was billed as Glenn Beck's Divine Destiny.

Beck's speech Saturday also evoked the feel of a religious revival.

"Look forward. Look West. Look to the heavens. Look to God and make your choice," he said.

Beck has also begun organizing top conservative religious leaders - mostly evangelicals - into a fledgling group called the Black Robed Regiment.

The organization, whose charter members convened in Washington this weekend, takes its name from American clergy sympathetic to the Revolution during the 1700s.

Beck's emerging role as a national leader for Christian conservatives is surprising not only because he has until recently stressed a libertarian ideology that is sometimes at odds with so-called family values conservatism, but also because Beck is a Mormon.

Many of the evangelicals who Beck is speaking to and organizing, including Land, don't believe he is a Christian. Mormons, who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, call themselves Christian.

"There's a long history of tensions between Mormons and evangelicals and some of that is flat-out theology," says John C. Green, an expert on religion and politics at the University of Akron. "Mormons have additional sacred texts (to the Bible) and a different conception of God."

"It's also competitive," Green said, "because evangelicals and Mormons are both proselytizing in the U.S. and around the world."

Some evangelicals criticized Christians for partnering with Beck this weekend because of his Mormon faith, provoking a number of evangelical political activists to pen defenses of their decision to join Beck.

But Evangelicals and Mormons have also stepped up cooperation around conservative political causes in recent years. In 2007 and 2008, presidential candidate Mitt Romney reached out strenuously to evangelical leaders, winning endorsements from the likes of Bob Jones III, a Christian fundamentalist.

Evangelicals and Mormons led the successful push to pass California's gay marriage ban, Proposition 8, in 2008. Activists from both traditions say they can set aside theological differences in the name of moral issues.

"The evangelicals participating in the Restore Honor event are not endorsing Glenn Beck's theology, nor is he asking them to," said Ralph Reed, former executive director of the Christian Coalition, who attended Saturday's rally.

"Together, we and millions of our fellow citizens are calling America back to its Judeo-Christian values of faith, hard work, individual initiative, the centrality of marriage and family, hope, charity, and relying on God and civic and faith-based organizations rather than government," said Reed, who leads the Faith and Freedom Coalition.

But Beck has sometimes upset religious conservatives. For instance, he said recently that opposing gay marriage is not a top issue for him.

Since launching his 9/12 Project last year, which is meant to "bring us all back to the place we were on September 12, 2001," Beck has gone in a more religious direction.

The second of the project's nine principles is "I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life."

The Southern Baptist Convention's Land, who hadn't talked to Beck before a few weeks ago, has started getting questions from the TV and radio personality about theological issues.

"I think he's moving - I think he's a person in spiritual motion and has been," Land said.

"He has said as much to us," Land said, referring to fellow pastors. "That he has moved in the direction of being more spiritual, more concerned with cultural issues and seeing that politics isn't the answer."

In discussing religious values, Beck generally speaks from a nondenominational perspective, avoiding specifically Mormon or evangelical references.

Beck's religious rhetoric appears to counter the prevailing conventional wisdom that the power of religious conservatives has been eclipsed by the Tea Party movement's small-government conservatives.

But Green says that "groups of religious people who care about social issues have not gone away."

"Some of their leaders faded but that group didn't disappear," he said. "They are waiting for new leaders and my sense is that Beck would like to be one of those leaders."

Caution: I remain opposed to all forms of real, established or incipient theocracy including  the Taliban, the Dalai Lama and his followers and the US religious right. We consent to being governed by laws, not by men, in order to moderate the influence of powerful collectives; the collectives, be they a hereditary nobility, mystical ‘reborn’ bodhisattas or trained theologians are all dangers to liberal (or conservative) democracy.

The big, immediate, danger to both the Democrats and Republicans in the USA is that the anti-incumbent, small government, semi-libertarian Tea Party proponents might make (philosophically unlikely) common cause with the religious right. In the long term separating the religious right from the GOP will be a good thing – the Republicans need to return to their conservative, secular, small town, small business roots, the values of which still resonate with many Americans, including (most?) American independents.

 

[Kirkhill]

Another radio personality, Ralph Klein, said the key to political success was to figure out which way the parade was going then run to get out in front of it and "lead".

Glen Beck I put in that league.  He isn't a leader.  The Tea Party took off without him.  He has just made himself the/a voice for the movement. 

Sara Palin might have a better claim to be a leader.

But I don't really think there is a leader per se.  I think the Tea Party was born from that increasingly large segment of the population that didn't see themselves as either partisan Democrats or partisan Republicans, that tuned out the debates (flame wars, bar fights, "your mother wears army boots" encounters in the press) and were declared to be apathetic because they didn't vote.

Maybe that bunch now feels they have a reason to vote.

Obama as motivator.

 

[Shock]

Sorry, couldn't resist!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3J_QLtYqlk

Glenn Beck at his finest.

 

[a_majoor]

It will be interesting to see what ticket the Democrats offer in 2012:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/predicting-the-2012-gop-presidential-ticket/?singlepage=true

Predicting the 2012 GOP Presidential Ticket
Tomorrow's elections today, because it's never too early.
September 2, 2010 - by Myra Adams

With 2012 less than 500 days away and just a few months left before the November midterm elections, there is no better time to predict the 2012 Republican presidential ticket, because no one else in their right mind would dare.

Yes, I am aware that predictions of this nature are usually worthless, but they are fun nevertheless, and who doesn’t need some fun in these last depressing days of President Obama’s Orwellian-sounding “Recovery Summer”?

(Which leads one to ask: Does “Recovery Fall” start in September? Or did Recovery Fall eclipse Recovery Summer way back in June?)

These are questions for another time. But as for the 2012 GOP ticket, my prediction as of now is: Governor Haley Barbour and Governor Mitch Daniels.

This would be a historic governor-governor ticket. Never in our nation’s history has there been a presidential ticket with two governors, and never has it been more needed.

In fact, back in March of this year, I co-wrote a Daily Beast column with Mark McKinnon about the strong possibility that the 2012 GOP presidential and vice presidential nominees would come from the statehouse. Now it’s time to stick my neck out and predict these two governors will be the eventual headliners.

In the Daily Beast column, we listed two-term Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour among the vice-presidential contenders, but respectably called him “king of the Republican governors” because of his chairmanship of the Republican Governors Association (RGA).

We wrote, “Barbour is someone to watch because he will be so influential in the 2010 governor’s races and will be a mainstay on the national news shows.”

Still true today, but here is the big difference between March of this year and now: Haley Barbour as RGA chairman has emerged as the de facto leader of the entire Republican Party (a post Barbour actually held from 1993 to 1997). This has been accelerated by the disastrous tenure of Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele.

Now Politico calls Governor Barbour the “most powerful Republican in American politics, at least for the next three months.” This refers to the $40 million he has raised as RGA chairman and his political operative skills, which will most likely lead to an increase in the number of victorious Republican governors among the 37 states holding gubernatorial elections in November.

Of course, if he is successful, Barbour will not only keep that “most powerful Republican”  title along with an impressive stack of IOUs. On November 3, you will also begin reading about how Haley Barbour was the “real winner” of the midterms and hearing hours of  “will he or won’t he run” cable chatter.

The answer is “yes.” Haley Barbour will run and he will be the 2012 GOP presidential nominee.

Back in January of this year, Newsweek called him the “Anti-Obama” and “Mr. Fix It.” Both titles are even more accurate now and position him well for 2012.

Haley Barbour is a governor who has weathered Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and now the Gulf oil spill, state-level crises of the magnitude normally reserved for presidents. His stature has risen through both tragedies.

According to a July Rasmussen poll, Governor Barbour had a 70% approval rating in Mississippi.

Barbour was first elected Mississippi governor in 2003 with 53% of the vote. He was re-elected in 2007 with 58% of the vote. Quite a feat considering he presided over a state where 47 out of 82 counties were declared Katrina disaster areas.

Barbour’s Katrina leadership has been compared to the 9/11 leadership of Rudy Giuliani, propelling a little known Southern governor into the national spotlight.

His second term ends in 2011, and he is term limited. Nice timing for a 2012 run.

Haley Barbour will have the organization, money, experience, and political savvy to turn his RGA fiefdom into Barbour 2012. According to Politico, “his logic is simple: When he surveys what most Republicans consider to be a weak field, he sees no reason he couldn’t easily beat them. He is a better strategist and fundraiser than any other candidate currently considering running — and just as good on television and in debates, his thinking goes.”

Which really means that on November 3 look for Haley Barbour to start being the political equivalent of Hurricane Katrina — wiping out his opponents with Category 5 wind gusts.

Finally, after the hurricane passes, he will still have a unique advantage: everyone who is anyone in Republican politics on the national or state level already has a friendship or at least a working relationship with Haley Barbour.

If Republican inner circles were a small town, he would be the mayor — a most powerful mayor who knows exactly how to get what he wants.

In this same Daily Beast article, we called Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels “the man to watch” among the presidential gubernatorial contenders.

Daniels, a popular two-term governor, knows how to painfully balance a budget and create jobs in a Rust Belt state. As a result, he’s had much media buzz speculating on whether he will or won’t run.

The Economist, in a recent profile, headlines that he has “the right stuff” for 2012.

Even though Daniels is not a charismatic media candidate, he has that “every man” ability to connect with voters. In 2008, he was re-elected with 58% of the vote, an 18-point margin, in a traditionally red state that turned Obama-blue.

Daniels is also a Washington player, having served as George W. Bush’s first Office of Management and Budget director until June of 2003.

He has conservative credentials and the Weekly Standard gifted him with a long glowing cover story in June. You can not help but like this man after you read it.

Governor Daniels is still “very watchable,” but it may only be in a supporting role.

For now, he doesn’t have the organization and fund-raising apparatus in place for a presidential race that unofficially begins on Nov 3.

Daniels is only flirting with the idea of running for president, and I believe he will decline, but not for lack of organization or funds.

It’s way more personal.

Governor Daniels and Governor Barbour are pals. Rumor has it they have had a conversation and the “deal” is only one of them runs for the top slot.

Gee, I wonder who that will be.

That rumor only strengthens my prediction that Daniels will end up in the #2 spot with Barbour at #1.

Sounds like good long-term planning for a VP pick, for there will be no embarrassing sound bites slamming each other in a debate.

It also gives Barbour one less car to pass on nomination highway.

Now since any governor-governor ticket would be perceived as light on foreign policy experience, Haley Barbour should ask General David Petraeus to retire and enlist his services as secretary of State. How could Petraeus resist walking in the footsteps of Generals George Marshall and Colin Powell, being the history buff that he is?

This governor-governor pairing especially brings desperately needed executive level managerial and budget balancing experience to the White House. There are skills Obama and Biden sorely lack. Between the two of them, they have never run a business, never balanced a budget, never met a payroll, and never created a job.

Perhaps that is why “Summer of Recovery” became the “Fall of Recovery,” with its backsliding economy and 61.3% of Americans believing this nation is on the wrong track.

Maybe the Barbour/Daniels ticket will finally hammer home the message that Americans loath to hear: our current budget and debt are unsustainable, and our very survival as a nation is a stake.

Not exactly a cheery 2012 bumper sticker, but one we all need to recognize as truth.

For this governor-governor ticket will be forced to run on an economic reality check, because all the hope and change along with “Recovery Summer” has slipped away.

Myra Adams is a media producer, writer and political observer, who served on the McCain Ad Council during the 2008 McCain campaign. Her columns have appeared on The Daily Caller and as a co-writer on The Daily Beast.