Appealing to the Electorate

A quick glance at the American electorate after Tuesday's election offers questions which beg answers. This is highlighted even further when we contrast the results of the Election of 2012 with those of 2010.

Michigan, for example, elected an overwhelmingly Republican state government in November two years ago. Tuesday, 9 of the state's 14 Congressional Districts went to the GOP, even the one held by Thaddeus McCotter where Republicans were represented by something of a renegade. All 6 attempts to amend the state constitution failed. Yet Michigan also went for President Barack Obama by a comfortable margin.

Wisconsin had voted in a solid Republican state government, one which even survived a well funded recall attempt. Yet it went for the President as well, while also electing the first openly gay US Senator. Ohio, solidly Republican as well within itself, also voted for the President, albeit by a slim margin. Indeed in Ohio, the third party vote may have made the difference. But why should it have ever been that close anyway?

Part of the answer surely lies in the fact that rural areas are more conservative than urban. When dealing with state offices, particularly the most local ones such as state houses and senates, as they are typically more such offices outside of urban areas (or at least outside of the central cities) it isn't too much of a shock to GOP legislatures while liberal voters carry elections for purely national offices such as the Presidency. Yet that can't be the entire answer; after all, Rick Snyder won here as Governor running with the same electorate which went for the President. So too did Ohio and Wisconsin Governors John Kasich and Scott Walker in their respective states.

Part of it may have been a relatively weak candidate in Mitt Romney. Part too may have been Hurricane Sandy, as pundits such as Bill Riley assert that the storm gave President Obama the chance to look presidential while effectively stunting the Romney campaign for several days. Part of it as well may be that Romney never really, outside of the first debate, pushed the issues which would have put Obama on the defensive. He played too nice, some thing the Democrats rarely do. They nearly always push their advantages to the limit; that's why have Obamacare. If they were as interested as playing nice, as interested in what the people truly want, they would have never pulled the parliamentary trick which gave us Obamacare in the first place.

But the biggest reason may actually be rather shallow, as much as we hate to admit it. It may simply that the typical voter votes their gut rather than as the result of a well thought out approach to elections, the political process, and political philosophy. The right to vote does not mean that voters will vote with any consistency, or employ any particular rationale in determining their vote.

That's why the federal government was supposed to be relatively small, and decidedly limited. The founders knew that a large, overarching structure would eventually swallow the smaller units of government in a federal system. Especially when the electorate begins to gravitate towards that central organism rather than keeping things local.

This does not mean that our day is done. The United States isn't necessarily on the road to a Western European style socialism, despite the desires of our European and Canadian friends who like the President more than they like us. We can still turn back, as we did with Reagan in the 1980s. But we, us conservatives and our Republican partners, are simply going to have to do a better job of selling ourselves but, more importantly, our creed. The people will respond to that because, despite any inconsistency, they do know truth when they see it explained clearly and unambiguously. And they will support it.

Fighting the Good Fight

The United States House of Representatives has voted to repeal the 2010 Health Care plan. The GOP promises to fight hard in the Senate to follow up in agreement with the House. This is despite the fact that Nevada's Harry Reid has vowed to not it come to a vote in that body. Even so, should it pass the upper chamber, there is the virtual certainty that President Obama will veto it.

Just the same, the Republicans are well advised to press the issue as far as they can. If the are truly intent on showing that the are the party which speaks for mainstream America, if they really want to show the general populace that they are different from the democrats in thought, word, and action, then then the GOP must fight this battle to the end. Anything less would have to be considered a failure.

With the high number of Democratic Senators up for reelection in 2012 compared to only few GOP seats, and especially with the recent announcement that North Dakota's Kent Conrad will retire after this term, the Republicans can set themselves up to be the major party for decades. If they show backbone and grit and make sure the voters know they are not the Democrats. That begins with fighting Reid and company all the way to the mat and making the Democrats the fall guys on this issue. If they can back up their words with action, they'll do well. If not, nothing particularly dramatic will happen in November 2012.

Census Data Bodes Ill for the President

The Census Bureau will release its report on the recent count of the US population tomorrow, and as expected, it doesn't look good for President Barack Obama and his Democratic minions for the 2012 elections. Combine this with the results of the 2010 elections and 2012 looks positively abysmal for the left.

Many states which the President won in 2008 will lose electoral votes, the ones which really count, while states such as Texas will gain big. The Lone Star State is expected to gain four House seats, and it wouldn't be a surprise if all four went to the GOP. Then we have the fact that Republicans now control the majority of state houses, the places where districts will be redrawn based on Census data, which should certainly mean that even states with little or even no loss of Congressional representation will likely end up with districts favorable to the GOP.

As a true coup de grace, a factor not created intentionally by anyone yet wildly in alignment with the Republican planets, far more Democratic senators will be up for reelection in 2012. This should give the right a great chance of taking the Senate back.

True, it is far too early to tell for sure what will happen. We know that the left will challenge many redistricting plans in court because they hate democracy. They cannot stand that they are on the outs with the voting public so they will attempt to controvert the will of the people through the courts. Yet can that plan work?

Maybe yes, maybe no. But their gyrations will surely make for interesting politics throughout the next year and a half.

A Couple of Quick Comments

The Vatican has been accused of money laundering. Or has it? Is it all really only an overaggressive Italian court seeking to sensationalize a simple clerical error? Our vote is that it's simply another attempt to slander the Church. After all, Christians are the only group left for whom it's okay to be discriminatory.

Sarah Plain may run for President in 2010. Most pundits believe she can't win. But some are now drawing comparisons to here and the poster child of the left, Barack Obama. The difference may be that her supporters are energized while his are not. Mew polling shows that independents has abandoned the President in droves. Hopefully, all that his election in 2008 has effectively done is to serve as a wake up call to the American people about the evils of socialism and government control.

The GOP's new Pledge to America isn't bad, but it also isn't all that good. The Republicans it seems still are not listening to their base; it is the conservatives who can make them the majority party once more, and keep them in power for years. If the Party actually responds to the right. You would think that the primary election season would have been enough to demonstrate that. But some lessons are learned very slowly.

It's Coming...

A new forecast is predicting gains in the House of 50 to 60 seats for the Republicans this November. That would easily give control of the chamber to the GOP.

As President Obama's poll ratings continue to slide amid his childlike swings at the Republican leadership (being treated like a dog? Really, now), the 2010 mid-term elections are taking the shape of another 1994. Couple this with the continued malaise (we love using Carter era terms, especially against his fellow Democrats) of the economy and the state of fear over the health care debacle, along with questions over whether Democrats can handle foreign policy questions (read: terrorism) as well as Republicans, and the right wing must simply be salivating all the more.

Factor in that old and true saw that liberals tend to sit out bi-elections in greater numbers than the voters who truly care about the direction in which our nation is headed (read: conservatives) and the prospects are truly astounding. The positive analysis for the GOP could go on forever.

Yet it won't. It won't have to. Because on November 2nd, 2010, the predictions will end. Fact will reign, and it will shine brightly on the Republican Party.

The Spirit of 94. Pass it on.

Buying Elections

The wife of WWE Chairman Vince McMahon is running for the Senate out of Connecticut. Linda McMahon is running well ahead of her Republican challenger and should be the GOP nominee. All at a cost of a mere $22 million dollars.

Some say she is buying the election. But at least she's using her own money, if that be the case. Further, that complaint seems trivial compared to the purchase price of the American Presidency, bought by Barack Obama without the aid of public funds. It seems that the whole idea of public funding of elections is becoming passe.

What we are facing is a real free speech issue, one that leaves a bad taste in many mouths. Don't the rich have free speech too? Why can't they express themselves with whatever tools are at their disposal?

Because money brings power. Barack and the Democrats learned that in 2008.

But, you know, if we had a government like the Framers intended, if the Federals weren't allowed to do so much which they should not, what real power would there be in Washington to lust after? If there weren't so many spoils to divide among so many allies, and so many causes so deserving of cash from the public trough, maybe all this talk about buying elections wouldn't be so prevalent. Or meaningful.

In the end, we get what we pay for. But at least when it's private money at work, our tax burden is lessened.

Michigan Primary Vote

Mike Cox, Pete Hoekstra, Mike Bouchard, Rick Snyder. Who should a good conservative support?

Cox has the Right to Life endorsement, and that's important. But Hoekstra insists he's pro-life too, and Bouchard's record seems pretty clear as well. Rick Snyder is ambiguous on the issue, which is not surprising given that he is in the camp of the economy first crowd.

None of the other elections in Wayne County matter very much to the right wing because, as a rule, the winner of the Democratic Primary will be the general election victor and we have interest in them. But for the governor's race, our votes may actually matter.

Seeing as Bouchard is not likely to win, place, or show, it apparently comes down to Mike Cox or Pete Hoekstra. So as Right to Life has gotten behind Mr. Cox, he is probably the best choice.

Republicans; Give Them Their Due on Civil Rights

The minority vote is taken for granted by the Democratic Party. That's a shame, when you consider how badly that group has played minorities over the years.

Democrats want to take credit for all the advancements in civil rights in recent times, indeed for any and all forward movements on civil rights in our entire history. Yet at the least, the GOP deserves more consideration in what it has done in that area over time.

It was a Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower, who sent federal troops to insure that minorities were allowed in public high schools. Going back much further, a Republican, Abraham Lincoln, did the most to free the slaves. Say what you want about what he said at the time, his actions were what ended slavery.

How quickly too we forget the Dixiecrats, Democrats who opposed civil rights legislation. You know, the guys such as the late Robert Byrd, whose past the Democratic party has gone to great pains recently to ignore if not outright, ahem, whitewash? Not that it isn't good that he may have recanted later on in life, there is nonetheless his history of at least initially working against minorities.

It is interesting also to note that Republican support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was actually stronger than Democratic support. As a Party, the GOP voted for the Act by about an 80% - 20% margin; Democrats, while overall in favor of it, voted at about a 62% - 38% figure. Indeed, not enough Democrats in the Senate voted for the measure to have passed it on their power: only 46 Democratic senators voted aye. That means that it would not have passed the Senate without Republican support at a time the Democrats were the majority party by a tremendous number in that chamber, 67-33.

Why don't we hear about this in schools and the media? Because it's not history that they like. It makes conservatives in general and Republicans in particular look too good. So much for the objectivity of the journalists and educators.

When you throw in the fact that many minorities are social conservatives, one cannot help but conclude they need to rethink their ties to the Democratic Party. But when the race card gets played, well, we'll see who's actually played.

The GOP says, thanks, NL!

You think that there's no connection between baseball and politics?

Think again.

With the victory of the National League in last week's annual Major League Baseball All Star Game, it seems that the great American game has found itself in lock-step with the political trends of the last half century or so. Provided that the polls keep heading the direction they are with the anticipated results which this November is expected to bring, it appears that the NL win is a harbinger of doom for the Democratic Party. Wins by the Nationals in 1966, 1980, and 1994 precipitated huge Republican gains in the elections the following autumn. In total, National League wins have come before the nine elections which have resulted in GOP double digit gains since the middle 1900's.

So the liberals have something more to fear now: the American Pastime is against them. When baseball looks upon you with disdain, you are indeed in deep, deep trouble. The betting man should put his money on a Republican grand slam.

The Spirit of 94. Catch it.

November is Fast Approaching

Yes, things still look bad for the Democrats in November. There are many conservative Republican groups who are raising significant amounts of money for use in the upcoming elections, the Democrats are very unpopular, and President Barack Obama continues to display nothing short of despotic tendencies from the Oval Office. No political reporter worth their salt would expect anything less than major change in the coming months.

Of course, it is still far too early to know for sure. The only important data won't arrive until the late night of November 2nd or the wee hours of November 3rd. It isn't as though the Republicans are without issues, either. There is no clear leader within the party at this point, established politicos of all stripes are held suspect, and the many conservative groups could splinter GOP support rather than ensure the party of victory.

But with the coffers of groups such as Liberty Central and American Crossroads burgeoning and the freeing up of corporate political giving after recent Supreme Court rulings, well, it is unlikely that Republican candidates will hurt for money this fall. No less than the Democratic President we now endure realizes the importance of cash during a campaign. The hypocrisy apparent when a liberal opts out of government campaign financing is itself galling, especially as they're the ones who want to restrict the freedom of others in their electoral giving. It was but one of the first real views our nation had of a the quasi-dictatorial intent of an Obama Presidency.

Now we see more evidence, not coincidentally also from the same health care front where he displayed his contempt for democracy in forcing through health care reform a few months ago. The President's recess appointment of Dr. Donald Berwick as head of the nation's Medicare and Medicaid programs, allowing him to avoid the confirmation process, shows little regard for the generally required constitutional input of the Congress on high ranking political appointees.

Not only is Dr. Berwick an advocate of rationed health care, a problem we've been promised would not happen here, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, but apparently even ranking Democrats are upset over the President's move. Senator Max Baucus of Montana, who's Finance Committee would have overseen confirmation hearings over such an appointment, expressed dismay at the action. An action likely planned anyway, as the the Democrats who nonetheless control the Senate hadn't even scheduled any confirmation hearings on the question. They accuse Republicans of trying to torpedo action, yet ramrod through what they want without concern for the betterment or will of the American people. Who are the true hypocrites?

The Spirit of 94, friends. Coming to a polling center near you this November.

Rising From the Ashes?

Did the 2008 election expose former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as an uninformed, shoot from the lip gal unfit for governing? Only time will answer that question, but for the moment, if she truly did flame out in what may have been merely an inaugural national political run, it is fair to wonder if there is something of the Phoenix about her.

Her endorsement record of gubernatorial candidates in 2010 primaries is 4 and 0, should South Carolina Republican Nikki Haley win a runoff in the Palmetto State on June 22nd as expected. In House races Ms. Palin's magic had not been spun quite so well as her chosen ones are a mere 5-4. Still, it is easier to have an effect on broader races in part because a larger pool of voters are involved. The more local the candidate, the more likely the results are tied into the local political landscape. Someone with broad national appeal may not play as well among those more tied into the smaller regions.

And not all of her endorsements have met with enthusiasm in conservative circles. Palin declined to support Nevada's Sue Lowden, a party favorite who lost to Tea partier Sharron Angle. Meanwhile, her support of Terry Branstad in Iowa met with conservative sniping that he was too moderate. So there seems to be a bit of playing both sides going on in the Palin camp.

All of which means...what? An argument can be made that she's positioning herself for 2012, looking for winners who may be able to use their power to support a Palin for President campaign. In that view, it makes sense to support conservatives and Tea Party types who may be an asset in their home states while choosing those in moderate areas who could win votes for her there. Further, she may be attempting to line up a winning record among others as a way of showing that she is a winner herself. Momentum is tomorrow's starting pitcher, the baseball wags tell us, and 2102 is, well, tomorrow in the election cycle.

It was a mistake for the politicos to interpret Sarah Palin as shallow in 2008, despite evidence to the contrary. This is not to say that she will have a cakewalk should she mount a campaign for the White House. But she would not be the first conservative interpreted as backward to reinvigorate American conservatism in the end. We may one day hear her name in sentences with Ronald Reagan.

Or we may not. Either way, at this point Sarah Palin does not appear quite so out of her element as many initially thought. Considering her accomplishment in simply becoming governor of even a small state such as Alaska, it would unwise to write her off too soon. Particularly if her people fare well this coming November.

A Mixed Bag

Primary elections are happening all over the nation today, and incumbents in both parties are anxious. The Democrats are worried due to anti-incumbent sentiment as they have the most incumbents. The GOP is concerned because the Tea party movement has the potential to disrupt their plans. It should be a fascinating evening watching the returns trickle in.

Congress, dominated by the Democrats, stands at an approval rating of 29 percent, lower than at a similar time in 1994 when the ranking sat at 40%, and everyone on their side of the aisle knows what happened that November. Yet the sailing may not be all that clear for the Republican Party. Incumbents in Nevada and Iowa face what appear to be insurmountable challenges, while Tea party candidates may disrupt party favorites in many areas. The big trouble with that is polling data shows the loosely aligned Tea Party mavericks hold a rather muddled opinion among the general public themselves: roughly half of those surveyed distrust the movement. When you factor in a supposed 60% doubt among the electorate that the GOP can be trusted to fix our problems, there has to be concern on the right side too.

Nevertheless, with President Obama's ratings low, it would seem that the folks with the most to gain are still the Republicans. We should know more by this time tomorrow, and the real debate will not be over until deep into the fall. But our money is, for now, still with the GOP.

2010 Census: How Will Politics Affect Politics?

All that effort, all the time and money spent on the 2010 Census, all the encouragement from the government to stand up and be counted, and who ironically is the most likely to benefit from it?

Republicans, that's who. With the 2010 mid-term elections shaping up as a political windfall for the GOP, and with many states holding gubernatorial elections as well, what we have is yet another fear for the left coming to fruition. You see, the States will be redistricting the House of Representatives, and the more states controlled by the GOP, the more likely that new districts will benefit the Republicans in 2012.

The Census figures will not be available in time to affect this year's vote, but will certainly have a major effect on the makeup of Congress after November 2012. So this year's elections may well be of that rare type and quality which affect, not simply the immediate political landscape but that of at least the next decade. It is an opportunity the Republicans will surely do all that they can for their best advantage.

But more than that. Let's face it: the people most likely to have filled out their Census forms or at least made sure they were counted are the same people most likely to come out for what are often seen as less important elections. The people who don't get counted are generally the ones whose regular participation in the electoral process is less than exemplary. They don't get involved in much of anything, preferring to stay in the shadows for whatever reason. While the folks who do make themselves known tend to be Republican.

For all of our Democratic and liberal friends, be afraid. Be very afraid.

The Morning After

Rand Paul has won in Kentucky, Arlen Specter has lost in Pennsylvania, and Blanche Lincoln down in Arkansas still doesn't know where she stands as of this writing. So what does it all mean?

The Tea Party folks will surely tell you that Paul's victory is a win for them, as it came against establishment GOP support for Republican primary challenger Trey Grayson. They may well be right. As to how far the ripples may be felt, only time will tell. But if in a generation we will have seen a turn back towards the more traditional libertarian conservatism of the American right, then the course adjustment will almost certainly have begun in the Bluegrass State.

Specter lost in part due to anti-incumbent sentiments, no doubt, but in part, we like to believe, because he was a turncoat. If there ever was an instance of perceived political expediency at work, it was in the Senator's switch to the Democrats as he felt he couldn't win Pennsylvania as a Republican. He would have been reelected had he stayed in the GOP, given the relatively moderate outlook of the Keystone State's electorate, but he bolted, thinking it the only way he could keep his power. It seems his little fiefdom didn't want him on those terms.

Blanche Lincoln was painted, by no less than traditional Democratic backers such as labor unions and progressive organizations, as too much of a Washington insider to be that good for Arkansas. Again, we don't know her fate at this point, but one cannot help but wonder at how even certain segments of the left are painting a hero of the Obama Administration as a pariah. Is that perhaps the Democrats' best strategy for the fall, to pretend that even the supporters of their poster boy are in fact dupes? To call the scene interesting is an understatement, but perhaps there are platoons of even liberals who see that they have overstepped their bounds and need to retrench. Or at least, as they so often do, reduce themselves to their latent hypocrisy and claim they are something they are not.

The bottom line is the anti-incumbent furor has won again. The Dems should still be quaking in their boots this morning. They have the most to lose, and are lined up to lose it.

More Politics as Usual?

Today is Super Tuesday. Sort of. It isn't expected to be anything like the Super Tuesdays which appear every four years in American presidential races, but merely as, perhaps, a portend of things to come.

Blanche Lincoln may lose her Senate seat in Arkansas if a predicted anti-incumbent furor continues to spread, and longtime Pennsylvania Senator and late coming Democrat Arlen Specter is on the bubble. Rand Paul, son of libertarian activist and longtime Republican Congressman Ron Paul, is looking good to win the GOP primary for a shot at the Senate seat in Kentucky made available by Jim Bunning's retirement.

The results will surely be overplayed and overanalyzed. Still, if all works out as anticipated, we will soon be in an even better position to see what November may bring. Will the tea partiers actually put something new on the table, or are they just attempting to rule by screams and threats, to paraphrase ousted Utah Senator Bob Bennett?

As if their screams are worse than the dictatorial style employed by President Obama and his lapdogs in Congress. But setting strident editorial comment (we include Bennett's sour grapes rant within that) aside, today will see either another stone set in the rebuilding of America, or leave a very muddled political landscape indeed.

How things look at 11PM this evening will be quite interesting.

2010: 1994 All Over Again?

It is not news that the Democrats in Congress are worried about the upcoming midterm elections while the Republicans are smelling blood. But what news there is about the issue is becoming clearer every day.

At AOL's Politics Daily, David Corn writes that despite numbers and issues which the Democrats could use against the GOP, such as the party being in bed with Wall Street, the polls indicate that the voting populace lacks any real feeling for the Dems. Anti-incumbent sentiment naturally will hurt those in office more than those out, and that seems to be the trump card which fate intends to play.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll gives the Republican Party a whopping 56 to 36 percent advantage over the Democrats as to who the public supports for November. Now, polls are not necessarily reliable, especially so far ahead of the actual event, but a 20 point differential is huge nevertheless. We may be rolling headlong into a repeat of the 1994 midterm elections.

True, the GOP suffered a setback in Utah, where incumbent Bob Bennett has apparently lost his Senate seat through in-party squabbling. Notice, though, that he has the dreaded I word associated with him, and that he is from a very conservative state. What happened to him means little to the tsunami the left faces.

So, to use the question which Mr. Corn asks, are the Democrats screwed?

Let's hope so.

Youth Wasted on the Young?

The Democrats are very worried about their chances this November, and with good reason. There's a significant part of the voting public simply fed up with the power surge in Washington, while President Barack Obama's ratings are, to say the least, stagnant. Still, discontent and poll numbers may be fleeting, and by themselves mean little this far ahead of game day. But that is not all which trouble our liberal friends.

The 2010 elections are midterm. Historically, midterm elections bode ill for the folks in power. That in itself forecasts something of a downer for the Dems. When you throw in the fact the people the President and his allies count on for support, the young and minority voters, have a strong tendency to ignore the middle elections, there is greater reason to fear the results. When those groups come out, it is often only for the big time.

To counter this, the Democrats are attempting to woo those groups into turning out en masse as they did in 2008 for Mr. Obama. But can the ploy succeed?

With unemployment still high and the spark from the President's electoral triumph gone, who knows? When you depend on a shallow electorate in the first place, the inspiration to vote will naturally be fleeting. Yet it may be the only card which the Democrats can play.

Older and conservative voters are the ones who tend to show up for the off elections. This, coupled with the other points herein, are what concern the Obama-Pelosi-Reid gang the most. It is all of these factors which spell disaster for them later this year.

Winston Churchill famously said, "If you are not liberal when you are 20, you have no heart. If you are not conservative when you are 50, you have no head." However true or not that may be, it is a saying which will be tested in November 2010. It is not an exam the Democratic National Committee feels it can pass.

Credit Where It's Due

Say what you will, and many people are doing just that, there is one thing which the Democrats have that conservatives don't. When they have the advantage, they push it.

The most recent example is of course the health care debate. No matter what the polls said, Barack Obama and his army forced the issue through. No matter what the tea partiers and protesters did, the President and Nancy Pelosi pressed on. No matter how often the liberals in the past have said that the then reigning GOP had to be open to all sides, they closed their ears to the Republicans and did what they wanted. In short, liberals know how to use raw political power, and will use it to suit their ends.

No big tent when they want what they want. No inclusiveness when their ideals are at stake. No regard for what the general populace wants when leftist oxen are threatened. They wield their power mercilessly and unilaterally. Yes, they're hypocrites. But they know how and when to press their advantage.

Remember that in the coming elections in 2010 and 2012, Republicans. You might forge yourselves a useful majority then.