Monday, September 27, 2010

The Write-In Contenders..Rebels against the Tea Partiers?

This political season has so far shown that the Tea Party movement does have some sway at least with Republican and even many independent voters with the nominations of several so-called, "political outsiders". The most recent addition to this club has been Christine O'Donnell who defeated Republican moderate Mike Castle in the Delaware Republican Senate Primary. Mr. Castle had the backing of not only the party establishment but also political veterans like Karl Rove. O'Donnell's victory cause many in the establishment to publically vent their frustration with the Tea Party movement that had propelled O'Donnell to win the nomination. Mr. Rove stated it best in that with O'Donnell as the Republican Candidate it made it unlikely that she would be able to defeat her Democratic candidate largely thanks to her conservative beliefs that aren't nearly as effective in the Democratic-leaning state of Delaware. This belief has been reinforced by the latest polls that show Ms. O'Donnell far behind her Democratic opponent.

As such, some have suggested that Mr. Castle could mount a Write-In campaign as Ms. Murkowski has in Alaska after being defeated by a more conservative tea-party backed candidate. However, many venerable political analyists don't see that as very likely. Write-In campaigns are tricky to pull off in the best conditions but they are seen as the only option for non-Tea Party Republicans who believe they can still win in general elections.

This year has really shown the threat the Tea Party poses to the Republican Party as a whole. While the Tea Party movement has helped motivate many new voters towards the Republican party, it has also shown that it can derail some of their efforts to win traditional Democratic states (like Delaware). This tension between the Tea Partiers and the Republican establishment could pose an even greater danger to the GOP should they gain control of Congress because it could infighting not just this year but in the next election cycle, in which the Democrats could take advantage of the chaos. For the moment though, the Democratic voters are not nearly as motivated and for the moment have been unable to trully captialize on the tension between the GOP and the Tea Party.

This November is shaping to still be very exciting, with most experts agreeing that Democrats will lose control of the House of Representative but thanks to recent events it looks that the Senate will likely remain in Democratic hands which will make the aftermath of the Mid-Terms all that more confusing and exciting (for political wonks anyway).

Which brings me to a new link I have added to the my blog. The New York Times has this year set up a Political page/blog called the FiveThirtyEight which includes a vast array of information on races all over America including poll numbers, local statistics, voting records etc. The site also makes their own educated guesses for the likelihood of the outcomes of these races and the likelihood of who will control Congress after the Mid-terms. I highly recommend it to those who want to see the big picture this year politically.


Wednesday, September 15, 2010

I know it sounds crazy...But

Much has been made in the last few years over all the President's "Czars". Many a political ignoramus claimed these Czars were proof of President Obama's socialist tendencies (totally ignoring the fact that most of the existing Czars already existing before President Obama took office). Others questioned that whether these Czars were really going to eliminate the government waste at all, which is a very good question. The problem is, we don't know for certain so perhaps the President should do something that many have said comes so naturally to him, hire another Czar. I know its sounds crazy, but hear Liz Peek of the Fiscal Times out..

Saturday, September 11, 2010

September 11th..We will not forget

On the 9th anniversary of the attacks of 9/11, I can't find the words to properly honor those who died that terrible day..So I look to the man who, for better or worse, held Americans together that day, President George W. Bush:

“Time is passing. Yet, for the United States of America, there will be no forgetting September the 11th. We will remember every rescuer who died in honor. We will remember every family that lives in grief. We will remember the fire and ash, the last phone calls, the funerals of the children. “- President George W. Bush, November 11, 2001

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

2010 the new 1982? Maybe..

There has been some talk as of late about how the current political and economical situations of this year is comparable to those of 1982 during President Reagan. On the surface, the comparison is definitely interesting and seems quite convincing but is it really a good comparision? The people at PolitiFact has done so checking for themselves, and found the comparison to be "Mostly True" on their 'truth-o-meter'. I am inclined to agree based on these facts:

1. New President- Both Obama and Reagan succeeded unpopular Presidents (Bush and Carter), and we quite popular in the first year or so of their presidencies because of this. However, Reagan like Obama, saw their popularity among the American people drop half-way through their first terms.

2. Economy- Both Presidents came in at the beginning of recessions and experience high umemployment rates going into the fall midterms, which had reprecussions on their popularity and their party's success in the fall.

3. Midterms- Both Presidents experienced losses of their party's standing in Congress, though in Reagan's case the Republicans were in the minority and still lost seats in the fall whereas Obama's Democratic Party is in control of both houses of Congress and is likely to lose control of at least one house.

That is where the comparison ends, because while not set in stone, its likely the Democrats will lose control of the House of Representatives this fall and possibly even the Senate (though that is far from certain). Reagan came into office with Democrats controlling the House so he was already an "opposition" President, whereas Obama should have been in a more controlling position. While President Obama has had some legislative success, Republicans (especially in the Senate) have been fairly effective is causing Democrats problems.

Another part of the comparison is that even though Reagan's popularity was diminished in 1982 and his party lost seats, he was still able to win re-election (rather easily) in 1984 and Obama supporters believe that such success could be duplicated by President Obama in 2012. Whether this is true or not I don't know but I do agree the comparison is definitely relevant.

Here is the original Fact-Check by PolitiFact, read it and judge for yourself..