Maher On the Loose

Usually Real Time with Bill Maher is a beating the conservatives session. But this week was a little different.

Bill went on his show with a round table destined for trouble. It featured Andrew Breitbart, conservative blow hard blogger who likes to change little things like facts to better represent his opinions. On the other side of the spectrum was cartoonist and comedian, who oddly enough had two season debuts, The Cleveland Show and Family Guy, coming up the following weekend.

In the middle of the table was Amy Holmes, a centrist pretending to be liberal but who really owns the center-conservative block of the talk radio airwaves.

What ensued was pure comedy gold... And was incredibly interesting to watch. Bill pulled strong to the center, dehumanizing democrats for having no spine, and swiping at Republicans for getting in the way. But his leniency to a guy like Breitbart, who is a notable social pariah, was particularly surprising.

Which brings me to my topic for the day, the representative democracy. Voters elect representatives to lead them forward, protect their rights, and be their functional arm in the government, local, federal and state. But at what point do voters rights of control over said official begin, and at what point do they end. At what point do voters have the ability to demand of their elected leaders to do their will, the beck and call of a community, regardless of validity or proper legality. At what point do elected officials have the ability to ignore these voices and instead lead from their own perspective, right or wrong. This is the predominant issue in our modern society. Look at a figure like Sarah Palin, she was an elected governor of Alaska, whose followers asked her to resign so she could connect with the country. At what point is that going to far? Look at somebody like President Obama, he ignores a good about of his base and governed from a fundamentally different mindset, a philosophy of whats best for the country is whats best for everyone, and not necessarily in the long term. At what point should his opinions reflect the voters more?

These issues are not small. They are serious road blocks in our civil discourse. And we must find a way to work around them. Or certainly, with them.

I Wasn't Invited To Your Tea Party!

(Taken From Here)

If you have been alive over the last two years, you know what the Tea Party is. Unfortunately, it isn't quite as cool as the above scene from Toy Story, but its pretty close. And maybe the coolest thing about the Tea Party is that it's anything BUT one political organization. It is more a frame of mind, an approach to politics in 21st century America. Now, if you have attended a rally or watched coverage of the Tea Party rallies (those usually held by Glen Beck or Sarah Palin), you know that about 50% of the attendees resort to silly costumes, stupid signs, racist slogans, and general all around idiocracy. The other half are generally concerned that our countries fiscal policy isn't sustainable, and is leading us down a path from which we cannot return.

The problem is that the half of the Tea Party that is stupid is also the loudest. They are the loud guy in the meeting, who just has to have his say, and wont listen to any rational arguments. These are the half that are the devout followers of people like Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Sarah Palin, she who must not be named (congresswoman), and who tend to repeat verbatim the talking point these people spit out every day. Obama is a socialist, democrats are Marxists, Obama is a muslim, lao-tribesman, Hitler-esque leader who wants to take your money and your guns and make you poor. And literally, that is not an exaggeration, these things are said by nationally heard media figures, daily.

And this is ultimately why people wont, and don't, take the Tea Party seriously. Although half are smart and have the ability to make sound arguments, they don't get heard, because the talking heads are too busy going off (or should I say getting off? Hard to see the difference sometimes).

So of course, it was shocking this week when Tea Party candidate Christine O'Donnell beat established conservative and Delaware favorite (former Governor) Mike Cassell, who had been heavily favored in the polls before the primary. And this was very much a Tea Party victory, with the deciding factor being O'Donnell's ability to get her voters out to the polls. But, alas, not everything is heaven in conservative world.

O'Donnell has opened up as a double digit underdog to democratic candidate Chris Coons, some polls putting it at as much as a 16 point lead, which is absurd. The problem is, Republicans thought they had Delaware in hand, which is huge. Delaware is a liberal state, and the only real chance at senate victory was to elect the already popular Cassell, which is now effectively dead.

And now the shit storm begins. Republican strategists such as Karl Rove, David Frum, Alex Castellanos have come out condemning O'Donnell, noting that her primary win dooms the Republicans from winning the Senate. And its true, they wont have the seats to do it anymore. Others like the Beck, Plain, Hannity, Limbaugh crowd have backed O'Donnell, saying they must be behind all their primary winners.

But this is a failed strategy. If you support someone with a shady past, who has no history of governance, you look like a buffoon when they actually have to govern, and they inevitably screw-the-pooch. A rift, that already existed in the party, is now very much public. And its not going away. And its a fight for survival.

The countries demographics are changing, more minorities are entering, the middle class is struggling, and political parties are under the gun. So the Democrats in the early 2000's saw this, and said hey, we will be the party of the future, the party of the progressive thinker. The Republicans went the other way, supporting traditions, the wealthy, and white people. Now, they have lost what they need to get elected. Votes, money, and a future. So some Republican leaders like Michael Steele and David Frum have tried to reintroduce a big tent to the party, welcoming in the newly majority demographics of the country. But its just not happening, and the Republican party continues to shrink.

So now, its the battle for hearts and minds. One party is for choice, marriage equality, and stem cell research, and health care coverage for all citizens. One stands behind wall street, fortune 500 companies, and gun rights. Which one do you think has a future, in the next 10 years and the next 50? Its pretty clear. And its sad, because the last death grasp from a generation of thought that is now dead is starting to die off (see national polling in last month), and the country is showing its ready to move forward on issues like the environment, infrastructure, and naturalization of immigrants. You can either ride the wave into town, or you get wiped out along the way. November may be a Republican victory, but the stage is set for future dominance for the Dems, and the elephants have nobody but themselves to blame.

Tidal Wave of Tears

Its post labor day, and you know what that means... Mid term election fever.

For one side, its time to rebound after two straight tidal wave elections. For the other, as the Presidents party always does, they have to try and survive.

Donkeys

For democrats, the news has been all bad the last six months. Almost every TV host has been ranting and raving about these elections being a total Republican sweep, with a ten point margin being quoted as the determining factor. But, I have some good news for these boys: It really aint that simple. Great websites like Real Clear Politics collect polling data from all the major polling companies and catalog it, showing each race on their website which details the many chases. If the Republicans were to take the house, they would have to win 35 seats back, an almost unprecedented feat. To take the house, they would have to unseat four senators. The Senate seems out of grasp, as people like Sharon Angle are putting themselves out of the race, and the Dems look to hold a 2 seat margin post election time. But the House might be in play. But it is going to be close. There are upwards of 20 races that are too close to call, and in the next eight weeks could sway one way or the other.

Elephants

As is always the case, the party that doesn't hold the executive branch of the government is always seeking to get into power. And they typically do, creating a split government, which the American people seem to like. But there is much work to do. Over the last two weeks, the summer bump the Republicans got from bad job numbers has worn off, and the Democratic strategy has emerged: Paint the Republicans as irresponsible, and not able to hold office. And unfortunately, its working. Combine that with stronger than expect economic numbers from August, the Democrats have created a little momentum. They are still going to lose some seats to the Republicans, but if the Elephants want this to be a total change election, they are going to have to change the public narrative around, and there isn't much time left.

Hill-arious

(Taken from THIS website)

At the risk of being painted as a woman hating white southern male, I will go ahead and say this: The idea of Hillary Clinton running for President in 2012 against the incumbent in her own party is simply hilarious.

The idea that she could win, is even funnier.

Listen, I think women tend to be better leaders than men. Female CEO's have had great success in the business world, and women like Hillary and Condoleezza Rice have also fared well in the political realm. It is not an issue of competency, but rather ability.

Donkeys

The Democrats simply cannot afford to let someone run against their incumbent (assuming Obama runs for a second term), especially after losing a number of seats in the fall 2010 elections. They would seem disorganized, disaffected, and their base of followers would become disenfranchised. Essentially, the party would become dismembered.

Now, if it is 2016 that we are talking about, then Hillary might have a shot. But the same thing that did in McCain might kill Hillary, age. Hillary will almost be 70 years old by the time she would take office, and that is a little past acceptability for the American public. Best case scenario for Hillary: Joe Biden retires, Hillary becomes Vice President, and she gets to call the shots for four years.

Elephants

I think there is some danger for the Republicans if Hillary decides to run. Mainly, it kills Sarah Palin. The only hope Palin ever had was if she got the female vote of the country, along with the Republican base. But if Hillary runs, a more experienced, more intelligent, and more financially viable candidate, Sarah wont stand a chance. I'm not totally sure that the republicans even want Sarah to run, but if that is indeed their plan, Hillary would most certainly derail it.

Overall, things aren't going well for Obama. If, and I think this is unlikely, Obama decides not to run in 2012, and Hillary is willing, there is NO doubt in my mind the Democratic party will immediately come to her side to support her, and she will be the runaway favorite. And like I said, that is disastrous for Republicans. This would mean essentially 8 years of a Democratic President, with the option to extend for four more. And incumbents rarely lost Presidential elections, so things wouldn't look to good.

But, alas, I think we are starting to get ahead of ourselves.