Beyond Democrat and Republican: A Closer Look at Third-Party Campaigns (ContributorNetwork)

There has been plenty of recent speculation in the media about a possible third-party run for president by current Republican candidate Ron Paul. Whether Paul, or any other candidate, will make a third-party play against President Barack Obama and the Republican nominee this November remains to be seen. In the meantime let's look at some of the more creditable third-party presidential runs of the past one hundred years:

* Theodore Roosevelt (1912) -- A century ago the old "Bull Moose" founded the Progressive Party after a rift with his hand-picked Republican successor William Howard Taft. Roosevelt was upset with Taft for not continuing his progressive platform after he had left office. Roosevelt was so fired up that the former president decided to enter the 1912 race as the candidate for the new Progressive Party. Predictably Roosevelt split the vote and handed the election to Woodrow Wilson. Still, TR's 27 percent of the popular vote remains the high-water mark for third-party candidates still today.

* Strom Thurman (1948) -- Aside from being considered by many historians as the biggest upset in presidential election history -- incumbent Democrat Harry S. Truman beat Republican challenger Thomas Dewey -- this election was famous for Thurman's State's Rights (or Dixiecrat) Party. The Dixiecrats were white Southern Democrats who deplored the moves that the Truman Administration were making toward desegregating the South. They formed their own party and chose Thurman to run against Truman and Dewey. Thurman won four Southern states and 39 electoral votes and managed to get 2.4 percent of the popular vote.

* Ross Perot (1992) -- The Texas pro-business billionaire decided to throw his hat into the ring as an Independent candidate in the 1992 election. Concerns about the state of the economy, and a general distrust-as always-of Washington insiders, helped fuel a surge of support for his candidacy. In May, six months before the election, Perot was actually polling ahead of the incumbent Republican George Bush and Democratic challenger Bill Clinton. In the end Perot captured nearly 20 million votes and almost 19 percent of the electorate.

* Ralph Nader (2000) -- This was Nader's third run for president and, while his ultimate vote count was modest (about 2.8 million total votes and 2.73 percent of the electorate) his presence on the ballot might have proven to be monumental. That's because Nader took part in one of the closest presidential elections in U.S. history between Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush. Many have suggested that, had Nader not been in the race. Gore, who actually won the popular vote, would have captured enough electoral votes to win the White House.

View the original article here

Three Democrats Challenging President Obama for the Nomination (ContributorNetwork)

With all of the focus of the 2012 presidential election firmly, and rightfully, placed on the Republican Party's nomination process, most probably believe President Barack Obama is running unopposed as the Democratic Party's candidate. Technically, at least, that is untrue.

While these three candidates may have a better chance of getting struck by lightning than winning the Democratic nomination--and that is not an exaggeration, they do have a much better chance of getting struck by lightning--let's take a look at three of the Democrats who have decided to challenge the president in 2012:

* Darcy Richardson -- A former insurance specialist and progressive Democratic activist from Pennsylvania, Richardson is the author of a multi-volume history of third-party politics in the United States. He has never held public office before but, as Richardson states on his official campaign website, he was compelled to campaign for president because he has been "disappointed by President Obama's abandonment of many of the progressive values that he articulated so eloquently -- and passionately -- during the 2008 presidential campaign…" Richardson finished in ninth place in New Hampshire's Democratic primary with 264 votes.

* Randall Terry -- A pro-life Democratic from New York, Terry was arrested at Notre Dame in 2009 for protesting a commencement speech by pro-choice President Obama. Terry's sole purpose for running against Obama seems to be so that he can attack him for his pro-choice stance. He also strongly favors the legalization of marijuana, establishing a national sales tax, and the expansion of oil drilling, a diverse mixture of positions for sure. Terry had a better finish than Richardson in New Hampshire coming away with 442 votes, a full one percent of the total.

* Vermin Love Supreme -- A performance artist and anarchist who claims to be "the only bona-fide American presidential candidate to actually donate a living organ." Supreme favors colorful and odd outfits and also claims to be the only candidate who supports funding time travel research in order to go back to kill Hitler before he was born. According to his website, he also believes that brushing one's teeth should be mandatory. Perhaps this eclectic platform helped Supreme beat both Richardson and Terry in New Hampshire. Once all of the votes were counted he carried the day among all three challengers with 833 votes.

View the original article here

Gingrich: Romney Speaks French, Just like John Kerry (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | Newt Gingrich is attacking Mitt Romney for speaking French in a new ad. However the Daily Caller is suggesting that this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, claiming that Gingrich is fluent in French as well.

The accusation comes at the end of the ad, in which Romney is compared to two other Massachusetts pols, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry, who tried to run for president and failed. It has Kerry publically speaking French and then Romney doing the same thing. Hence Romney equals Kerry in foreign language fluency.

The suggestion is made that Gingrich must be a French-speaker as well, due to the fact that his doctorial dissertation on education in the Belgium Congo cites numerous French language documents. Gingrich also interviewed a number of people in Belgium. French is one of the major languages in that country.

One supposes that Gingrich could have employed a translator, thus escaping the taint of being fluent in the French language. One wonders what the fuss is about, however.

To be sure Kerry seemed to speak French as a means to buttress his haughty, aristocratic mien, setting himself up as someone who suffered from Paris envy and not someone in touch with ordinary Americans. That included Cajun people from Louisiana who speak a kind of French. There is no evidence, however, that Romney has tried to put on airs just because he can parlez vous.

It is not a necessary requirement that a president of the United States be multi lingual; he would have plenty of people who can make him understood to President Sarkozy, for example. However it would be intriguing to have a president, like Jon Huntsman, who can speak Mandarin, the main language of China. Farsi and Arabic might also be useful.

Indeed, there has been more than one multi-lingual president of the United States. According to the Monticello website, President Jefferson could speak Latin, Greek, French, Italian, Spanish and, of course, English. His acumen in foreign languages seems not to have hurt his ability to be president.

Gingrich is -- once again -- over reaching in his zeal to cut up Romney.

View the original article here

Vermin Supreme Places Third in New Hampshire Democratic Primary (ContributorNetwork)

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Vermin Supreme, the self-described "friendly fascist" who ran on a platform of mandatory dental hygiene and a pony for everyone, came in third in the New Hampshire Democratic primary.

According to the state's Secretary of State, Supreme racked up 829 votes for 1.4 percent of the vote, just 117 votes less than environmentalist Ed Cowan, who was the runner-up to Barack Obama. That was 380 more votes than Randall Terry, the anti-abortion activist who had a public falling out with his gay son, whom Vermin sprinkled with pixie dust at a lesser-known candidates forum at St. Anselm College.

Supreme claimed Jesus told him to glitter bomb Terry in order to transform him into a homosexual, according to the Union Leader.

Performance

The gray-bearded candidate, who can best be described as a performance artist, satirist and political activist, wears a distinctive outfit of a lime green jacket and multiple neck ties. He often wears a green plastic Hulk fist holding an American flag as a cod piece.

What is most distinct about Vermin Supreme's appearance is his headgear: a large black rubber boot known as a wader. His campaign slogan is, "A vote for me is a vote truly wasted."

Armed with a bullhorn, he popped up early for a Rick Santorum rally at a Manchester restaurant and took over the podium. "My name is Vermin Supreme. I am a friendly fascist. I am a tyrant that you can trust and you should let me run your life as I know what's best for you," he explained.

"As you know, all politicians are, in fact vermin. I am the Vermin Supreme, and that is why I am the most qualified candidate in this race at this time."

He then cut to the heart of the matter.

"Yes I am a politician. I will lie to you because as I have no reason not to. I will promise you anything your electoral heart desires because you are my constituents -- you are the informed voting public -- and because I have no intention of keeping any promise that I make."

Third's A Charm

This was the third-place candidate's third crack at the Democratic nomination, though only his second appearance in the New Hampshire primary, which featured 14 Democratic candidates this year.

Supreme first ran for the Oval Office in 2004, in Washington, D.C.'s Democratic primary. He first threw his boot into the ring in New Hampshire in '08, but compared to his 2012 finish, the outcome was disappointing. The 2008 Democratic primary featured Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich.

He took only 41 votes in that tough contest, perhaps because he sported a less-attractive galoshes-style boot rather than his impressive wader of 2012. He even ran in the general election, garnering 43 votes nationally, according to the Federal Elections Commission.

With the Democratic field again wide open in 2016, Vernon Supreme's horizons are endless. Makers of oral hygiene products and breeders of ponies will rejoice.

View the original article here

Is Democratic Socialism the Next Step in Our Political Evolution? (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | The last few months have seen some of the most prominent symbols of authoritarian communism falling. Protests have fired up in Russia against the almost dictatorial rule of Vladimir Putin (a former KGB officer and Communist Party of the Soviet Union elite). Allegations of election fraud and ballot-stuffing abound, and the people of Russia are now clamoring for real democracy.

Kim Jong-il has passed away and signals a change in regime of what USA Today calls "the world's last hardline communist state." While nobody is expecting a fair and free election in North Korea, the regime is changing. And the Glorious Successor Kim Jong-Un is reportedly "a whiz at computing and technology," which may open the door for freedom of information and communication in that country.

Finally, Cuba has slowly and quietly been instituting a number of free-market reforms, including privatizing real estate and allowing loans for private entrepreneurs. The anti-U.S. rhetoric of Fidel Castro has faded as he has, and Cuba is moving slowly toward a capitalist system. It is true that capitalism and democracy won the fight for world dominance decades ago in the intellectual and political trenches of the Cold War. But the fading historical bastions of communism must force us to consider this: What is the next step of human political evolution?

What is the next step?

This is what we must ask ourselves. Amid the chronic corruption and inequality that the current systems have promoted, and the subsequent economic collapses and global protests that they have inspired, there are any number of choices. Disciples of Ayn Rand would argue for a more capitalistic society (and would insist that the economic failures of the past century are due to the mixing of capitalism and socialism). However, there is another option.

Unfortunately, the words "socialism" and "communism" carry such a stigma these days that they are synonyms for unpatriotic and akin to treason (look no farther than the House Un-American Activities Committee which prosecuted members of the Communist Party at the height of the Cold War). But it cannot be ignored that all of the major communist societies in the past have also been authoritarian regimes. Communism equals authoritarian and capitalism equals democratic. This has been the norm, and thus the triumph of democracy has meant the triumph of capitalism. What has never been tried in any real way is a democratic socialist society, though it has existed in theory in the writings of various political philosophers like Erich Fromm and John Stuart Mill in his later writings.

What the collapse of the symbols of the last authoritarian communist regimes in the world should force us to consider is, are democracy and socialism incompatible? And if not, would a democratic socialist state thrive on the global stage?

View the original article here

Why Democrats Are Laughing (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | I've seen a few election years in my life, but never have I seen so much comedic license taken with candidates as we are enjoying with this campaign. Everywhere I look I am amazed.

Tonight I was roaming the Internet and stumbled onto Yahoo!'s hilarious "funny or die" GOP cyberdebate. I was howling with laughter at Patrick Warburton's interpretation of Rick Perry. What perfect casting. Then I saw Barack Obama's rebuttal. That was scary.

The reason we have to laugh is because really what's before us is quite terrifying. While I am glad to see the late not-so-great Newt Gingrich putting his foot in his mouth with ever increasing frequency and uproar, what we're left with for choices is pretty sobering.

Gingrich's blunt comments to the black community about food stamps instead of paychecks was characteristically tactless, regardless of what he meant by it. According to ABC news there has been an explosion of Web commentary about that one, so no need to address it here. Suffice to say that Gingrich has shown he can't open his mouth without upsetting someone. He can't go down fast enough to suit me.

Unfortunately what we're left with is a crew of presidential hopefuls who want to take shots at each other and harp on gay marriage while conspicuously avoiding the real issues. I still have hopes for Jon Huntsman because unless he wins the nomination, I will have no choice but to vote for Obama. An election in which voters can only choose the one who scares them the least puts America on precarious ground indeed.

Here's why I wouldn't vote for any of the following candidates.

Newt Gingrich: Besides all the many reasons I have enumerated in other commentary, his tendency to get people's hackles up probably wouldn't make us friends internationally. He also isn't nice when things don't go his way.

Rick Perry: Um, who?

Rick Santorum: I didn't like him in the first debate. He thinks he has been peeking into my heart and knows what's in there. At least that's what he said in Manchester N.H., according to the Los Angeles Times.

Mitt Romney: How is he going to decide which direction to go when he's the one everybody is following?

Ron Paul: Much as I like to complain about the government, I rather like having one.

It looks like a rough ride until November. I may not have any fingernails left by then.

View the original article here

Did Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson Just Play Scrooge to the Democrats' Christmas? (ContributorNetwork)

ANALYSIS | The word "Nebraska" loosely translates as "broad river" according to Netstate.com. And that's just what the Democrats are going to have to cross if they want to hold onto the Senate, now that Nebraska Senate Democrat Ben Nelson called it quits for after a career in statewide and national politics spanning more than two decades. Will such a retirement spell doom for Senate Democrats and their bid to hold onto the upper house of Congress?

Republicans probably perceived Nelson as "Dead Man Walking" after his health care vote, but Nelson made a career of defying expectations. He ousted a Republican Governor in a stand-pat election year in 1990. He was overwhelmingly reelected in a bad Democratic year (1994). He won an open seat in 2000, the same year Bush won and took Nebraska handily. And he coasted to a senatorial re-election in 2006. His only stumble came in 1996 when he lost an open seat Senate race (to independent-minded Republican Chuck Hagel), but only after breaking a campaign promise not to run for another office while governor, according to the Associated Press.

What's more is that this upsets Democratic Party plans. They had already purchased a number of ad buys, according to Schulte and Margasak. Nelson had a decent war chest, according to The Blaze. Plus, there was the prospect of a messy Republican primary between the state's Attorney General, State Treasurer, a legislator and business executive, which would have made things easier for Nelson.

There are no easy Democratic candidates to trot out as replacements. The entire congressional delegation is Republican, as are all statewide offices. Politics1.com lists Larry Marvin as a potential candidate (an Air Force veteran and prior candidate for office). There's also Scott Kleeb (former Congressional candidate) and Bill Hoppner (who ran twice for Governor, losing once to Nelson after a lengthy recount by 40 votes, and got 46 percent of the vote in a 1998 contest to succeed Nelson according to OurCampaigns.com), but only the younger Kleeb is likely to consider the election.

A more likely option could come from the state's second district, where Obama narrowly won in 2008. According to Politics1.com, three Democrats were attempting to unseat Republican Congressman Lee Terry: Douglas County Treasurer John Ewing, State Senator Gwen Howard, and Howard Buffett (listed as a former US Defense Dept. Official, Farmer, Philanthropist and Democratic Activist by Politics1.com). One of them could step out the race (where Terry faces his own primary) and switch to the Senate race.

Some on Yahoo Answers want Bob Kerrey to come back into politics. That may be wishful thinking on the respondents' part, but one cannot completely rule it out.

Whoever the Democrats run, it will be an uphill battle. For all their bad-mouthing of Ben Nelson, he was rated as a "toss-up" by the Charlie Cook Political Report, for race ratings in December 1 and 22 in the big red state of Nebraska. Already, there are 10 toss-up races; eight of them involved seats Democrats needed to defend. Only a Kerrey comeback might make this a toss-up.

Nelson's departure is likely to move the race into the Republican column, unless three things happen. First, the expected divisive GOP primary needs blood on the walls. Even this is not a guarantee, as Hagel was able to overcome a bitter intra-party feud against Don Stenberg (then-Attorney General, now State Treasurer, who wants Nelson's job). Second, Democrats need little or no in-fighting in their own primary. Third, Obama's fortunes need to rebound in a big way. He needs better economic numbers, or at least some sort of positive trend. And, as Cook wrote in the National Journal "If Republicans nominate someone whom swing voters find unpalatable, or if the GOP nominee self-destructs, Obama will benefit." And I have yet to meet a Republican in my conservative bastion of West Georgia (which resembles Nebraska for political ideology) who is enthusiastic about any of the choices, save Ron Paul supporters.

Democrats (and Democrat-leaning allies) must defend 23 of the 33 seats up for grabs in 2012, so the math was already against them. Without a big name entering the race, the Senate is even more likely to shift Republican next year.

View the original article here

Barney Frank's 2012 Slogan for Democrats: 'We're Not Perfect, but They're Nuts' (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | Barney Frank announced a few weeks ago that he would not be seeking reelection in his home district in Massachusetts in 2012, ending a 32-year congressional career. But it hasn't stopped him from being as outspoken as ever. In an appearance on MSNBC Monday evening, Frank told Lawrence O'Donnell that the Republican candidates were making statements as if they were "kings" and that the GOP had moved further to the right. He also jokingly implied that voters in 2012 should vote for Democrats because Republicans were "nuts."

After telling O'Donnell that the Republican race thus far had been "entertaining," he suggested that the Democratic slogan for 2012 should be: "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."

Given Frank's moderate to liberal views, there is reason to believe that he was only partially joking. The GOP candidates have been only too willing to build a foundation for the argument that they're slightly eccentric, deranged, or mentally imbalanced.

Take, for instance, presidential hopeful and former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum's insistence that abortions were responsible for less money being taken in by the Social Security Administration and causing the prognosticated upcoming crisis of a broke system.

Then there are the multiple statements from Rep. Michele Bachmann about gays, including that homosexuals were "part of Satan" (as reported in the Daily Mail). CNN reported that she told an audience member at one of her rallies in Iowa that the landmark Kinsey Report was unfounded, agreeing with her husband's remark that the findings were a "myth." She also once stated before Congress (captured on C-SPAN) that there was no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide was a harmful gas.

Texas governor Rick Perry made headlines -- a spawned a viral video, like that posted by the Associated Press -- with his reply to a child's question about evolution that it was a theory that was "out there." The fact is, it is a proven theory (as opposed to the creationism he said was taught in Texas public schools -- but is not).

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich also has sounded off on odd beliefs, such as the time when he told a group of evangelicals in San Antonio, according to Politico, that he feared his grandchildren would one day live in "a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American." Secular atheist and Muslim? As strange as that sounds, what about the grandchildren so easily reconditioned to forget that the "American way of life?"

Although these statements and positions are not indicative of Republicans as a collective and do not reflect upon candidates in the 2012 Republican nomination race as a whole, they should give voters pause -- especially with regard to future elections where these presidential contenders might compete. That is, unless voters choose to believe that it is outgoing Rep. Barney Frank who is "nuts" and that statements such as those made by several of the presidential candidates are reasonable.

Because, as is so much in the realm of politics, labeling persons, positions, and issues as "nuts" is most assuredly relative...

View the original article here

Democrats See Mitt Romney as Their Biggest Threat (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | The first vote in the 2012 Republican primary has yet to be cast, but the Democrats have already targeted GOP front-runner Mitt Romney. According to NPR, the Democratic National Committee recently unleashed a biting TV attack ad on Romney in key primary states.

This maneuver is somewhat unprecedented since the party of an incumbent president rarely goes to this length to attack another party's candidate months before the primary even begins. With the former Massachusetts governor facing stiff competition from Newt Gingrich, the Democrats are clearly hoping to put a dent in Romney's presidential aspirations.

Among the GOP candidates, Romney is arguably the biggest threat to President Barack Obama's re-election bid. The Michigan native has consistently polled well in a hypothetical matchup with the president. The latest Quinnipiac poll shows Obama leading Romney by only 1 percentage point, which is well within the error margin. This is in contrast with the hefty advantage enjoyed by the president over the other Republican candidates.

Romney has also done extremely well with independents -- the prized group one needs to capture to win the presidency. In fact, the same Quinnipiac survey shows the former Massachusetts governor leading all GOP candidates in moderate Republican support. Furthermore, the Real Clear Politics' average of polls puts Romney nearly 17 percentage points ahead of the next strongest rival in independent-rich New Hampshire. The least the Democrats would want is for Romney to ease through the primary process, en route to a showdown with the president.

Gingrich's recent surge in the polls has given the Democrats an opening to put more pressure on the GOP front-runner. The DNC clearly hopes its biting attack ad will help to peel off support for Romney in key primary states. It appears the Democrats would prefer Obama taking on Gingrich instead of Romney. While Gingrich is not a lightweight opponent; he carries much more political baggage than his Republican rival, having involved in politics for decades.

In the immediate term, the DNC's attack ad may actually backfire. Primary voters tend to coalesce around their party's candidates when they are being attacked by the other political party. By singling out Romney, the DNC is giving stature to his campaign.

View the original article here

How Frank's Retirement Hurts Democrats and Helps Republicans (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | When Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., announced today he would retire at the end of his current term, it was a serious blow to the Democrats. As a former political consultant, I know the damage of this retirement goes beyond the committees he sat on or the legislation he attempted to pass. One of the major faces of the party is turning off the lights and going home.

Frank is someone people have gotten to recognize over the years due to the fact he is often a guest on news shows. At times, he has been a voice of the Democrats and has been the go-to-guy in stressful times for his insight. He has gained a reputation for being quick on his feet and strong in his resolve. While I rarely agree with the congressional leader, I have always respected him.

People feel comfortable when they see commentators on the news they recognize. There is something odd in the human psyche that causes us to be more likely to trust people we recognize over those which are unfamiliar to us. With Rep. Frank moving on, the Democrats lose one of those familiar faces that people have learned to trust, or at least semi-accept.

At the same time, Frank works with many of the younger Democrats in Congress and has helped them stay firm in their resolve. These up-and-coming politicians will wake up tomorrow to the reality of one of their leaders giving up on the system. What does this tell them about the future of the Democrats in Congress?

At the same time, since he is walking away due to the redistricting, this may cause some of the other leaders in Congress to become convinced to do the same. Frank thinks the next election will be too difficult due to the redistricting in his state. How many Democrats will become discouraged by the redistricting in their states and place an undue amount of concern on the issue?

Even if Frank's seat goes to another Democrat, the Republicans can still chalk up a win. With one of the loudest voices in Congress being silenced, the Republicans are able to gain more strength. Instead of worrying about battling Frank, now they can focus on whoever had the best chance of carrying his torch.

View the original article here

Republicans and Democrats Watch Out: Centrists Are on the Rise! (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | Polls show that as many as a third of all Americans identify themselves as moderate or centrist, yet the candidates for public office seem to be getting more extreme every election cycle.

I have always considered myself a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. I am in favor of balancing the budget and reducing spending, but not of gutting social services to do it. I also favor equal rights for same sex couples and basically staying out of other people's bedrooms.

Who's my candidate? You'd think the major parties would care, but all the fury centers around which contender can capture the evangelical Christian vote. What about those of us - of all races, genders and socioeconomic classes - who want to see lawmakers take a well-reasoned, balanced approach to solving the serious problems we face today?

I usually vote for some Democrats and some Republicans, but frankly, I find most of those vying for the Republican presidential nomination alarmingly inappropriate. Some of these guys can barely put a coherent thought together, and yes, Mr. Cain, it is necessary to have a thorough knowledge of international affairs to be president.

I shudder to think what would happen if some of these guys became president. But where are the good alternatives? It seems that most intelligent, rational and capable individuals don't want the job. Who can blame them?

The extremists play the part of the squeaky wheel, shouting down the voices of reason. It's not in the nature of moderates to be that loud. We're the mediators, the problem-solvers, the ones who try to facilitate positive solutions.

Question: How can you tell when things are running smoothly? Answer: You don't notice them.

I'd like to see one of the six House Republicans who refused to sign Grover Norquist's tax pledge run for President. How about Frank Wolf? He's one of the few Republicans to vote against making the Bush era tax cuts permanent. Here's a guy who understands that fiscal responsibility means considering both increases in taxes and decreases in spending to balance the budget. I don't agree with everything in his voting record, but it's better than most.

As the percentage of moderate voters grows, perhaps we will gain enough political clout to convince the major parties that the middle ground is where creative solutions spring to life. It's time they started to care what we think.

View the original article here

Democrats Bailing on Obama (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | In 2008, a mystery candidate named Barack Obama made history by becoming the first African American president of the United States.

Today, Obama has a record, a very public record, with very real consequences. Among his most notable achievements: the most deficit spending of any president from George Washington to Ronald Reagan, stagnant unemployment, a record number of Americans living below poverty level and dependent on some form of government assistance and the first downgrade of the U.S. credit rating in United States history -- all while setting the national record for most rounds of golf played by a sitting president.

Republicans and the tea party tried to warn you. But most didn't listen. They were too busy chanting Hope and Change and calling anyone who didn't buy into it a racist. Now, as all those admonitions of economic and social chaos continue to come to ugly fruition, even Congressional Democrats, liberal pundits, pollsters and once rabidly loyal members of the mainstream media are starting to squirm with discomfort.

It's all about saving face, mind you. They knew the chaos would come too. They just know it's just getting harder for them to keep spinning three years of failure into a believable success story without looking like a fool. So now, just as Bush loyalists turned on George near the end of his struggling presidency, the most devoted of Obama's public relations support unit are bailing.

In August, Politico reported Democrat strategist James Carville offering a single word of advice for the struggling president: "Panic." On Monday, Patrick Caddell, President Carter's pollster, and Douglas Schoen, who advised President Bill Clinton's re-election, suggested through an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that it's time for Obama to "step aside" and give the nomination to Hillary Clinton.

According to a recent CNN/ORC International Poll 26 percent of Democrats would prefer that their party nominate another candidate for president. While that is hardly a majority, that number was only 18 percent a month ago.

In September, after listening to Obama's absurd class warfare rhetoric that the "millionaires and billionaires" need to pay their "fair share" of taxes, even the Associated Press had to call him out and bear the facts that prove "they already are."

Because of their highly unpopular fiscal policies, like Obamacare and the waste of his 2009 trillion-dollar stimulus, Democrats were pummeled in the 2010 midterms. Losses in the Sept. 13 House special elections in New York and Nevada were again attributed directly to Obama.

In anticipation of another drubbing in 2012, seventeen House Democrats - including the 16-term Democrat from Massachusetts, Rep. Barney Frank -- have decided not to seek reelection.

As Obama tours the country on his own reelection tour, incumbent Democrats who want to keep their seats are avoiding him like the plague.

After contacting over a dozen Democrats in the moderate Blue Dog Caucus Politico found only a few were even "willing to comment on whether they supported Obama's reelection bid."

Unable or simply unwilling to come through with those promises of Hope and Change the New York Times reported that Democratic operatives for the 2012 election have decided that "the party will explicitly abandon the white working class."

Once believing she and her husband were "well beyond the hot dogs and beans era" of their lives and finding herself "exhausted" at defending Obama - the man "who said he was going to change things in a meaningful way for the middle class," Velma Hart asked the president to his face at a Washington D.C. town hall a year ago. "Is this my new reality?"

Having observed the stark difference between Obama "talk" and Obama "reality" for three years even Chris 'I Use to Have a Thrill Up My Leg' Matthews wants to know; "Is this it? Is this as good as it gets?"

According to Gallup, 60 percent of Americans disapprove of Obama's effort to create jobs, 67 percent disapprove of his handling of the economy and the deficit and 73 percent believe it's all getting worse.

Republicans and the tea party tried to warn you. Now, after three years of the economic chaos Obama has inflicted upon the nation, their new message is simply; "We told you so."

View the original article here

Democrats to the White Working Class -- Drop Dead (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | A recent piece in the New York Times suggests the Democratic Party is preparing to toss working class whites, who have been part of the winning coalition for the Democrats since Franklin Roosevelt, under the bus.

The new coalition for the Democratic Party will consist of educated elites that will include "professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists" and poorer voters, primarily blacks and Hispanics. Working class whites have long be alienated from the Democrats since the phenomenon of the "Reagan Democrats," who switched to the Republican Party in the 1980s. Democrats lost this demographic group by 30 percent and more in the 2010 midterms.

The educated elites will be bought off with the support of rights to self expression, abortion, gay marriage and a leftward tilt on the environment and defense policy. The less affluent minorities will be bought off by new social spending and government assistance.

While the Democrats hope to hold their losses among working American whites down, one wonders how that could be accomplished if the sense grows that working people have been abandoned. Someone has to pay for all of that social spending that will benefit the poor, after all. Working whites also remain skeptical of government sanctioned hedonism, environmental regulations that stifle jobs, and cuts in defense spending that invite aggression from America's enemies.

Rush Limbaugh, the radio talk show host never slow to pick up on a political trend, suggested the Democrats are saying, on his Monday, broadcast, "If you work, we don't want you."

In a way, the new Democratic election strategy is a reaction to the tea party movement, which has risen from discontented working and middle class people who feel that their government has become too big and too intrusive. Instead of listening to the complaints of the tea party and adjusting their agenda to attract tea party voters, the Democrats have done the equivalent of extending them the middle finger. Instead they have embraced the Occupy Wall Street crowd, which is crying out for government handouts and entitlements.

This is a dangerous strategy. The tea party, consisting as it does of people who work and make the country run, are more numerous and more organized than the constituencies the Democrats are embracing. Thus the Democratic Party might have considered itself to permanent minority status.

View the original article here

Michigan Moves Toward More Charter Schools (ContributorNetwork)

The Michigan House Education Committee approved lifting several restrictions on the number, spacing and style of charter schools. House Republicans favored the bill, but it still has to pass Senate democrats who oppose it, says CBS News Detroit. Here's a Q-and-A about charter schools and public school academies in Michigan.

What is a charter school?

Charter schools are public schools that are owned and governed by private organizations or universities. National Charter School Resource Center defines charter schools as "independently operated schools that are allowed to operate with more autonomy than traditional public schools in exchange for increased accountability." Charter schools are also referred to as PSAs (Public School Academy). The Michigan Department of Education says they are held to the same standards as other public schools, including open vs. selective enrollment, anti-discrimination practices, immunizations and teacher certification. The perks of charters schools, supporters say, are freedom to make more educational decisions and accountability based on student needs not state-mandated guidelines.

How are charter schools funded?

With Schools of Choice provisions in the State School Aid Act, parents may choose where to send their children. With the child goes all or most of his per-student state funding vouchers. Governing organizations also invest money and apply for grants, but state dollars are the primary source of income. Charter schools are in competition with each other and with public schools for ADA (average daily enrollment) funds.

How does a charter school evolve?

As PBS explains, "A group of people--educators, parents, community leaders, educational entrepreneurs or others - write the charter plan describing the school's guiding principles, governance structure, and applicable accountability measures. If the state approves the charter, the state funds the charter on a per pupil basis."

What charter school restrictions are changing in Michigan?

Most states, including Michigan have placed restrictions on how many charters can operate in an area. Currently, Michigan has 255 charter schools, but if the measure passes congress, as it's expected to by the end of the year, that cap may be lifted. Other legislation lifts some restrictions on cyber schools.

Why the debate over more charter schools?

While charter schools were initially operated by colleges and educational institutions, charters are now available to private for-profit groups. Opponents are concerned that profit-based charters with a vested interest and access to public funds negatively impacts quality of education. Michigan Parents for Schools says that further that the charter school bills would prevent teachers from unionizing and make it easier for administrators to hire from independent contracting groups rather than hiring teachers directly.

Marilisa Kinney Sachteleben writes about people, places, events and issues in her native "Pure Michigan."

View the original article here

Republicans and Democrats Watch Out: Centrists on Rise! (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | Polls show that as many as a third of all Americans identify themselves as moderate or centrist, yet the candidates for public office seem to be getting more extreme every election cycle.

I have always considered myself a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. I am in favor of balancing the budget and reducing spending, but not of gutting social services to do it. I also favor equal rights for same sex couples and basically staying out of other people's bedrooms.

Who's my candidate? You'd think the major parties would care, but all the fury centers around which contender can capture the evangelical Christian vote. What about those of us - of all races, genders and socioeconomic classes - who want to see lawmakers take a well-reasoned, balanced approach to solving the serious problems we face today?

I usually vote for some Democrats and some Republicans, but frankly, I find most of those vying for the Republican presidential nomination alarmingly inappropriate. Some of these guys can barely put a coherent thought together, and yes, Mr. Cain, it is necessary to have a thorough knowledge of international affairs to be president.

I shudder to think what would happen if some of these guys became president. But where are the good alternatives? It seems that most intelligent, rational and capable individuals don't want the job. Who can blame them?

The extremists play the part of the squeaky wheel, shouting down the voices of reason. It's not in the nature of moderates to be that loud. We're the mediators, the problem-solvers, the ones who try to facilitate positive solutions.

Question: How can you tell when things are running smoothly? Answer: You don't notice them.

I'd like to see one of the six House Republicans who refused to sign Grover Norquist's tax pledge run for President. How about Frank Wolf? He's one of the few Republicans to vote against making the Bush era tax cuts permanent. Here's a guy who understands that fiscal responsibility means considering both increases in taxes and decreases in spending to balance the budget. I don't agree with everything in his voting record, but it's better than most.

As the percentage of moderate voters grows, perhaps we will gain enough political clout to convince the major parties that the middle ground is where creative solutions spring to life. It's time they started to care what we think.

View the original article here

Will Mitt Romney’s Lack of Political Experience Hinder Him? (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | In the 2008 election, Republicans criticized Barack Obama for his lack of political experience. Democrats turned the tables on Republicans on the experience argument when the GOP nominated Sarah Palin for vice president.

Now Republicans are trying to decide upon their nominee for president. One of their leading candidates is Mitt Romney, who is among the many who labeled Obama as "inexperienced" in his 2010 book. Romney may have been in business for awhile (like George W. Bush), but his political resume is relatively thin.

He served a single term as governor of Massachusetts. Other candidates like Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Perry and even Rick Santorum have many more years in office. Romney keeps touting his business credentials, but that's not the same as political experience. If Romney manages to win the nomination and get by President Obama, will that lack of political experience come back to haunt him?

To test this, I look at a recent CSPAN survey of who the best presidents were, according to a panel of historians. The best presidents include George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Harry S. Truman. This survey also rated the worst presidents, which count James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, Warren G. Harding, and William Henry Harrison on that list.

Political experience is measured in years in Congress, as governor and as vice president. Using this data, the following 10 presidents (best and worst) receive the following ranking: Buchanan (20 years), A. Johnson (18 years), Truman (10 years), Pierce (nine years), F. Roosevelt (four years), Harding (six years), T. Roosevelt (three years), Washington and Lincoln (two years each) and Harrison (0 years).

As you can see, those presidents with the worst rankings for competence tended to have more political experience. Presidents who tended to score well on such rankings of effectiveness have very little political experience.

You would think this would benefit Romney. He really doesn't have to have a lot of political experience to be a good president. Yet harping on the experience issue when critiquing his opponent isn't likely to help the one-term Massachusetts governor.

It not only calls attention to his own lack of political experience, but also reminds voters of Obama's record. The president has served seven years in the Illinois legislature, three years in the U.S. Senate and four years as chief executive, dwarfing Romney's political experience. But even though Obama destroys Romney when it comes to political experience, remember that one could say the same thing about James Buchanan and Abraham Lincoln.

View the original article here

In Senate's Approval of Defense Bill, Indefinite Detention of Citizens Ignored (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | In an evening vote, the U.S. Senate approved the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 Thursday, according to USAToday.com, with high profile sections 1031 and 1032 intact. With all senators voting, the roll call was 93 favoring passage and 7 opposing. Senate.gov shows that three Democrats, three Republicans and one Independent opposed passage of the measure. It's apparent to me that the idea of the United States becoming a police state was not vile enough for those 93 senators.

Sections 1031 and 1032 empower the military to detain American citizens on United States soil indefinitely. Although the stated intention of these sections indicates the intent is to allow the arrest and detention of terrorists linked to al-Qaeda, the wording is broad enough to allow the same treatment for anyone deemed to be a threat to national security.

Such broad wording for something that goes against the very rights given to each American by the Constitution, including representation and a speedy trial of peers, could be used very subversively in the hands of the wrong people.

Yes, it's true the country needs the NDAA to be approved, but at least three senators (Udall, Rand and Feinstein) proposed amendments to NDAA, Senate Bill 1867 to remove the indefinite detention wording applying to citizens in this country. Three times the Senate voted to allow what amounts to the military taking over the job of both civil law enforcement and the civil judiciary.

Sections 1031 and 1032 were opposed by CIA Director David Petraeus and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta; the military is not interested in taking on these additional responsibilities. All those who voted for passage of S.B.1867 must know something these two men and concerned citizens do not know.

The House of Representatives passed their own version of the NDAA before sending it to the Senate for a vote. The House bill did not contain sections 1031 or 1032; they were added by Senator Levin of Michigan as the sponsor. Now the two legislative bodies will have to hash out the differences before the bill can be sent to President Obama for consideration. There may yet be time for citizens to wield the power of their views with their elected officials.

Smack dab in the middle of the baby boomer generation , L.L. Woodard is a proud resident of "The Red Man" state. With what he hopes is an everyman's view of life's concerns both in his state and throughout the nation, Woodard presents facts and opinions based on common-sense solutions.

View the original article here

Occupy Wall Street May Help or Hinder Democrats (ContributorNetwork)

The Occupy Wall Street is taking a dynamic new turn. About two dozen protesters left their encampment at Zuccotti Park to being a trek to Washington, D.C. The group's aim is to show up in the capital Nov. 23, the deadline for the congressional "super committee" to reveal its findings to Congress to cut $1.5 trillion in government spending. Occupy the Highway is determined to make its presence known in the nation's capital.

Politicians have gotten involved with the Occupy Wall Street movement. Depending upon how the protests are viewed by the American public, Democrats may either be helped or hindered by the movement.

Polls

Two recent polls seem to suggest the Americans are becoming more aware of a widening income gap. Sixty-one percent of people polled by the Washington Post and ABC News say they believe the income gap is widening in the United States. More importantly, 60 percent say the federal government should do something about it. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll states 76 percent of its respondents feel the government should reduce the power of major banks and corporations.

This income gap is precisely why some Occupy Wall Street protesters have taken their demands to some of the richest individuals in the United States. One person walking to Washington, D.C., stated the purpose of the march was to ensure Congress taxes billionaires.

Statements and Elections

Many politicians have made statements on their websites supporting the Occupy Wall Street movement. Democratic New York State Sen. Thomas K. Duane posted a message in solidarity with the protests Nov. 2 for a planned march five days later. Adirano Espaillat from the state's 31st Senate District posted an annoucement about an 11-mile march planned for Nov. 7. He helped lead the march between Yonkers and New York City.

One potential candidate is already getting backlash for her 2012 Senate run. Crossroads GPS released an attack ad against Elizabeth Warren who is seeking a Senate seat in Massachusetts. The commercial claims her support of the Occupy Wall Street Movement means she advocates drug use, violence and radical policies.

Help or Hinder Campaigns

Republicans and Democrats may start using the Occupy Wall Street movement for political leverage. Bloomberg reports public opinion favors doing something about the widening income gap. That income disparity is part of what fuels the Occupy movement.

Republicans have already started one attack ad using a Democrat's statement about Occupy Wall Street against her. How the group is received in Washington, D.C., Nov. 23 may also lead to more political bickering.

One thing is certain. Two major forces will collide in the nation's capital right before Thanksgiving. Protesters who are fed up with rich people who have destroyed the American dream and 12 members of Congress tasked with finding out how to fix the government's finances. If the two groups find common ground, political debates may heat up even more.

William Browning is a research librarian specializing in U.S. politics. Born in St. Louis, Browning is active in local politics and served as a campaign volunteer for President Barack Obama and Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill.

View the original article here

Will Wisconsin Republican Gov. Walker Be Ousted in a Recall? (ContributorNetwork)

ANALYSIS | Wisconsin Democrats are attempting to oust Gov. Scott Walker as result of the messy debate over unions earlier this year. They are emboldened by recent recall elections and an Ohio referendum, but history shows it won't be so easy.

The Dairy State was treated to a fight over proposed new government powers to curtail union rights. We saw the spectacle of Democrat politicians fleeing the state to avoid a vote, Republicans going the extra mile to drag them back, and protesters disrupting the state capitol in a preview of "Occupy Wall Street." The GOP got its legislative victory, but Democrats struck back. Two Republican legislators (Dan Kapanke and Randy Hopper) were recalled in special elections. In other states, two more Republicans were booted in recall elections in November, while an anti-union measure was slammed by Ohio voters.

Democrats hope to bag their biggest prize: Scott Walker himself. The recall movement kicks off less than a week after the November election. Polls show several Wisconsin Democrats (Russ Feingold, Tom Barrett) would beat Walker in an election. But Democrats may well fall short.

Hopper and Kapanke may have gone down to defeat, as did Russell Pearce and Paul Scott, but not all recall elections are successful. Analysis of the National Conference of State Legislatures data reveals that such a strategy has only worked 17 times against state legislators. In 15 cases, it didn't. This includes several GOP state legislators in Wisconsin this year (and a few Democrats in the state, as Republicans retaliated unsuccessfully).

Recall supporters point out that other politicians have been ousted, but that list includes only two governors: Republican Lynn Frazier in North Dakota in 1921 and Gray Davis in California in 2003. Many other attempts to dump governors, mayors, and municipal politicians have fizzled.

On many occasions, petitioners have tried to oust Federal officials (mostly for political reasons rather than any real malfeasance) without success, as the Constitution has no such provision (though the Founding Fathers kicked around the idea).

Recalls bids have a spotty record at best. When enough petitions are gathered, the ousting rate is barely 50 percent, and that doesn't include failed court challenges or cases where organizers couldn't muster the minimum number of petitions. And while Walker may have higher disapproval ratings and less popularity than Feingold and Barrett, a slight majority doesn't support a recall at this time. So even though Democrats are on a hot streak, they have their work cut out for them in a recall effort against Walker.

View the original article here

How Did Ohio, Mississippi Ballot Initiatives Fare in 2011 Election? (ContributorNetwork)

The election that took place on Nov. 8, 2011 featured a number of statewide initiatives that have national import. Two of the results would seem to favor Democrats while two other results favored Republicans.

What the meaning these initiatives have for the 2012 election, if any, will be the subject of considerable debate for the next few weeks. Both sides of the political aisle find reason for comfort and for concern.

Ohio Issue 2: Collective Bargaining Rights for Public Sector Unions

Ohio voters rejected the Issue 2 ballot initiative, a result that had the effect of repealing a law passed in the Ohio legislature that restricted the rights of public sector employees to collectively bargain. Labor unions poured in tens of millions of dollars and many thousands of man hours to defeat the initiative. They succeeded by about a two to one margin. Conservatives warn, however, that this means that either taxes will have to be raised or services cut and employees laid off.

Ohio Issue 3: The Individual Insurance Mandate Under Obamacare

Proving that health care reform, also known as Obamacare, remains universally unpopular, voters in Ohio voted to pass Issue 3, which would exempt Ohioans from having to comply with the individual insurance mandate. Unfortunately if Obamacare remains law and if the Supreme Court upholds the individual mandate, the results of the measure are largely moot. It would, however, prevent Ohio from enacting its own version of Romneycare, passed in Massachusetts, which also has an individual mandate.

Mississippi Initiative 26: The Personhood Amendment

This ballot initiative would have defined a human being a legal person from the moment of conception, effectively outlawing all abortions, even in the case of rape or incest. This initiative proved to be too much, even for conservative, Bible belt Mississippi. The fear of unintended consequences, including the possibility that a woman suffering a miscarriage might be charged with involuntary manslaughter, influenced Mississippi voters to turn down the amendment.

Mississippi Initiative 31: Eminent Domain Reform

Even since the Supreme Court's Kelo decision, which permitted state and local governments to seize private property and to give that property to another private entity under eminent domain, states and localities have been scrambling to pass laws to tighten restrictions on eminent domain. Mississippi is the latest state to do so, passing a ballot initiative that largely prohibits state and local governments from taking private property and giving it to another private entity, even if it can claim that a public purpose, usually higher tax revenues, is being facilitated. It is another victory for property rights.

View the original article here