Why Obama Should Love the Tea Party.

Obama should get down on his knees and thank the powers that don't exist for the Tea Party movement. Obama was leading the Democrats into a slaughter. He did as much harm to the Democrats as Dubya did to the Republicans in the last election.

It was clear all along that the Republicans would make substantial gains in the House. As bad as that would be for Obama, it would be absolutely disastrous if he lost the Senate to the Republicans as well.

But, out of nowhere, the Tea Party came riding in on their extremely white horse (all the brown horses were arrested and deported) to save the president's ass.

Let us recount exactly how the Tea Party rescued Obama from his self-brewed disaster.

As things stand, as I write this, the Democrats will retain control of the Senate 51-49. All they needed was to lose two more seats and the Republicans would be in charge there.

So why didn't the Republicans pick up these seats?

Start in Delaware where Tea Party candidate Christine O'Donnell knocked Mike Castle out of the race in the primary. This was widely seen as a safe seat for Castle, who ought to have won rather easily. But O'Donnell was the sort of Religious-right loons that are attracted to the Tea Party like moths to a flame. Her views were simply too extreme for the voters to stomach. So what probably would have been a win for Mike Castle was easily turned into a defeat for Christine O'Donnell. It appears that she will lose the race by 16 points, a landslide defeat in most cases. O'Donnell moved a fairly safe Republican seat to the Democrats.

Now move to Nevada where Senate majority leader Harry Reid was fighting for his life. Sharron Angle was perhaps the most extreme of the Republican Tea Party types. Reid was in big trouble and his seat was a strong pick-up opportunity for the Republicans. But Angle's campaign was just too extreme and Reid won with a 5 point margin. That was much better than it ought to have been.

Those two seats alone gave the Democrats the Senate. But I suspect there is more at play still.

It appears to me that the Tea Party candidates had a direct impact on the California race. Barbara Boxer was in trouble. She was so closely tied to Obama that she was in trouble. It would have been a good thing had she lost, in my opinion.

Carly Fiorina ran against Boxer but she is going down to defeat. Fiorina was the victim of a vicious smear campaign by Boxer, and it worked. And the smear that seemed most effective was Boxer's linking Fiorina to "extreme" positions. Californians were skeptical of the Tea Party movement and to extreme Right positions. Linking Fiorina to "extremism" was effective. I won't say it scared people into Boxer's camp. But what it did do was give Democrats a reason to vote.

People in this election did NOT vote for anyone. They voted AGAINST someone. For Boxer to win she needed to give Democrats a reason to come out and vote against Fiorina. The "too extreme for California" smear was the means of doing that. There were enough, very extreme Tea Party Republicans running, and saying monstrous things, that the "too extreme" campaign resonated with many California voters and Boxer benefitted from that. Fiorina was not a Tea Party candidate and Boxer succeeded by making it appear as if she were.

Thoughts on the election (yawn).

I realize I've really not blogged anything about the election in general. Perhaps that is because there is nothing to get excited about—absolutely nothing.

Obama has alienated a huge percentage of voters. Even those individuals who are voting Democrat aren't excited about the man. He has failed to perform almost completely in any area where his campaign promises were good and decent. Where he promised bad things he has delivered and then some. This blogger considers Obama worse than President Shrub, and that says a lot.

Just as Geogie Jr. horrified the majority of voters and drove them into the Democratic camp last time around, Obama is driving them right back to the Republicans. Yet, the voters are not happy with the Republicans which doesn't mean they are happy with the Republicans either. And believe me, the system is so rigged by all this so-called "campaign finance reform" and other election laws that it is virtually impossible for anyone to challenge the two-party duopoly. Given how each screws over the public for special interests we may as well assume we live in a one-party state. Regardless of which party is in the White House the occupant of that building will be more like Mugabe than like Jefferson.

The one alleged ray of hope, for less intrusive government, was supposed to be the misnamed Tea Party. But look at the sort of creeps that are considered the leading TP candidates: Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Carl Paladino, Ken Buck, Joel Miller or even Randal Paul.

Not a one of them actually wants to get government intrusion into the personal lives of people reduced. If anything these clowns want more religion-based policies to control how you live your life. We were told that the Tea Party had a "libertarian" bent to it. Right, these guys were so libertarian (NOT) that they managed to make Wayne Root even look libertarian in comparison—and believe me, Root is no libertarian.

Angel, O'Donnell and Paladino are complete whackjobs, but then so is Miller. Randal Paul is just another power-hungry politicians who sees principles as bargaining chips, something that can be traded away when power is at stake. He is as bad as his father, on those issues where Daddy Paul is bad, and where Daddy Paul is good, junior falls to perform. Daddy went over to the lunatic Religious-Right some years ago and Randal is sucking up to these theocratic creeps even more. Randal will win, in my opinion, but then his opponent actually managed to look ever more crazed with his "aqua Buddha" commercials.

My guess is that the Tea Party candidates won't do as well as people assume they will. And I actually think they gave the Democrats more than they took from them. People are disgusted with the fake in the White House and his party but the Tea Party fringes are making a lot of voters think twice about voting Republican.

Certainly the Republicans had a shoo-in seat in Delaware before Christine O'Donnell won the Republican nomination. What was a safe Republican seat looks to me as one that the Democrats will pick up. The Democrat, Chris Coons, has had a steady and healthy lead over O'Donnell from the beginning.

California's Barbara Boxer was vulnerable, and with good reason. Sure the Democrats have been advertising heavily against Republican Carly Fiorina. But from what I've seen of the ads, which have been pretty brutal and, in my opinion, dishonest, the most effective strategy the Democrats have is the Tea Party. They are trying to paint Fiorina as "too extreme for California." But this "too extreme" campaign is one the Democrats are playing around the country.

They are doing so because the Tea Party types that did win Republican nominations are actually rather extreme whackjobs. The TP gave the Democrats about the only strategy that would work for them in this election.

Face it, the Democrats can't run on keeping campaign promises. The one big promise they kept, the take-over of health care, is the one that has voters infuriated. And the Democrats don't want to bring up campaign promises anyway—since they did so badly on them. Consider various reports that gay voters are now more likely to refuse to vote than ever before because Obama has talked like Lady Gaga but performed like Georgia Jr. on issues that concern the gay community. Given how bigoted the Republicans have been regarding gays, this constituency ought to be safely Democratic. Obama has been so miserable on those issues that he alienated the most secure voting block the Democrats had outside of black voters. Only the hard-core, brain-dead Obamatrons continue to make excuses for the man in this area.

The Tea Party types are scary and certainly not advocates of small government by any means. They are the worst elements in the Republican Party, not the best. About the best Republican around is Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico. I believe Johnson is fundamentally a libertarian—more so that Ron Paul for sure. I've questioned him and listened to him carefully. Even Jon Stewart, when interviewing Johnson, said, "But you're a libertarian?" Johnson smiled and said: "You think!"

I saw Johnson at a huge Tea Party rally trying to interest these Know-Nothings with his libertarian message. The response he got was deadly silence. What did get them salivating, and then foaming at the mouth, was anyone who got up and bashed Mexicans. I swear a heavy insult directed at brown people gave many in that Tea Party crowd the first orgasm they had in about six decades. Just the thought of it sends shivers down my spine. There is one good thing I can say about the Tea Party types I saw: the average age was just shy of death. A good number of them would be lucky to make until Tuesday.

Yes, the Republicans will make gains. And some big gains. But they couldn't help but do that since Obama handed them the election last year. The Tea Party probably dulled those gains somewhat. The TP movement is, in my opinion, a flash-in-the-pan and I doubt it will have any lasting impact.

The voters will continue to move in a mushy libertarian direction. The political system will continue to be "reformed" in order to prevent any real political challenge to the Democrats and Republicans. And that is the central issue in American politics today, one that no one is really talking about. The voters are moving in one direction while both parties are continuing to ignore the sentiments of the voters preferred instead to cater to their core members: left-wing loons and Right-wing bigots. Voter discontent is growing and the major parties have rigged the system so that they keep power in spite of that discontent.

Consider the "campaign reforms" that have been pushed in several places which prohibits any more than two candidates on the general election ballot for any one office. Those laws explicitly ban choice at the polls. Campaign finance reform was geared to protect incumbents from challenges, not to keep elections clean.

So, with rising voter discontent there is almost no way to fix the problem at the ballot box. The Demopublicans have made solutions illegal in order to continue their hold on power. In a third world country that would be a recipe for revolution. What it means in America is any one's guess.

Polls confirm voters don't like GOP but really dislike Obama

For a couple of years now I have been repeating a mantra of mine: voters are voting against incumbents not supporting the other party, regardless of which party is in power.

People hated Bush and voted Obama because they were sick of Republicans. Obama and the Democrats stupidly assumed that was support for them and a mandate to screw up health care with government mandates and controls. I have been arguing that voters would flock to the Republicans because they aren't Democrats, not because they support the theocratic conservatism of the Religious Right.

So, it is nice to see Bloomberg news confirming what I've been saying. They say voters are moving over the Republicans but that polls suggest "voters aren't embracing Republicans as much as they are rejecting Democrats." They write: "Republicas are in an anomalous position—poised to make political gains while the party and its policies are unpopular.

What is particularly worrisome for the Democrats is that the Bloomberg poll shows that voters who are most likely to vote are overwhelmingly rejecting the Democrats. Among those who say they will definitely vote 51% lean Republican and 37% lean Democratic. About half of voters, 49%, said they would benefit if the Republicans win, 29% say they will be harmed and 27% say it will make no difference. Apparently Nancy Pelosi is highly disliked; 52% have a negative view of her, while only a third are positive. I'm with them on that one, I can't stand the woman either.

Given the option of voting Democrat, Republican or Other, 18% of voters prefer other without having an other named. Now, the Libertarian Party won't be able to capture that vote. It ruined its reputation as a libertarian party with clowns like Barr and Root. And certainly the runner-ups in that race would have been pathetically poor candidates. Given the same choice over again I would prefer Steve Kubby but, as nice a guy as he may be, he wouldn't be a great candidate. The LP simply has NO one worth supporting.

My guess is that the most successful third party option would be if moderate Republicans broke off from the GOP. There are a couple of races where this has happened and the race is between the now Independent, but formerly Republican candidate, and the GOP, with the Democrats trailing the pack.

If an independent party could be orgaized around individuals taking the best from each of the two main parties, it might succeed. Certainly someone as decent as Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico, would be a good option. While he isn't as pure as some LP people, he is more decent than many and more electable.

I loved Johnson on the Jon Stewart show. Stewart looked at Johnson and said, "But aren't you a libertarian?" Johnson just smiled and said: "You think!" It was a perfect response that caught Stewart a bit by surprise. He seemed speechless for a second and then asked again and Johnson nodded his head. I like Johnson, I saw him tell Tea Party types that they needed to end the war on drugs, which took guts since that would only lose him support. At a dinner party of about 40 he was the main speaker and he was approachable and open to ideas.

"Moderates" can win. The polls show strong support for lower taxes, less government, and a balanced budget. A plurality or majority, depending on the poll, don't like Obamacare, and wait until people start losing the insurance they were told they could keep. Voters are not favorable to US interventionism overseas. The endless wars have tired them and they want out. And few favor the moralistic bullshit of the Religious Right, which the GOP is continuing to promote.

If a moderate party adopted lower taxes, a balanced budget, reduced government, and actually supported bringing the troops home (unlike lying Obama) they would go a long way. If they repealed DADT most voters would have no problem with that, polls show most people favor that move. They don't even have to embrace a pro civil liberties position, if they just refrained by the Theopublican policies of bashing people in the name of God.

Voters have been beaten down by theocratic Republicans like Bush. They have been smacked around by elitists who look down on them, like Obama. They really do seem to want a government that will just back off and leave them alone for awhile. A moderate party, made of Republicans who want to tell the Religious Right to fuck off, and Democrats who are sick and tired of being lap dogs to unions and progressive, would have a chance. It's too late this year, of course. But we can dream.

The Coming Landslide and Mushy Libertarianism

Political analyst Larry Sabato has penned a piece on the upcoming Republican landslide. There is little in it that I disagree with. The Republicans are expected to make major gains in the Senate and the House. They are expected to take the House and possibly the Senate as well.

Sabato says the GOP may pick up 47 seats in the House and are likely to gain 8 Senate seats but possibly as high as 10 seats. When it comes to governorships Sabato says the GOP should gain 8 more seats and that somewhere between 8 and 12 state legislatures will be under Republican control.

This is precisely the sort of landslide I've been predicting ever since Obama used strong-arm tactics and government-funded bribes to ram his health insurance scheme through Congress. A lot of Democrats, who were not fond of the bill, were pushed into voting for it. And many of them will lose their seats as a result.

Sabato does note something that touches on points I've made numerous times: "2010 will generate a substantial pendulum swing from the Democrats to the Republicans. It is not that Republicans are popular—most polls show the party even less liked than the Democrats. Many observers find it amazing that the less-liked party is on the verge of triumphing over the better-liked party."

Sabato thinks this is simply because voters want to reduce the power of those in office. That is true. But the voters don't particularly care for either party. The middle of the road in American politics today is a sort of mushy libertarianism. Voters don't want high taxes, don't want lots of regulation, are tired of the wars and foreign interventionism, don't trust politicians of any party, and aren't particularly interested in imposing "Christian values" on our largely secular society.

This doesn't mean there is a consistent libertarian streak by any means—just witness the ugly anti-immigration hysteria disgustingly pandered to even by some Libertarian Party candidates. This is why I refer to the middle as a mushy libertarianism. It is not consistent and it is not principled but it is there. For the most part the American middle ground wants to leave people alone.

The two extremes in modern politics are busy-body Democrats and busy-body Republicans. The Democrats are dominated by the Nanny Statists and the Republicans dominated by nasty Theocrats. Given those choices I too would like the Democrats more. The Democrats think I'm stupid and need them to care for me. That is pretty disgusting. But what really scares me is that Republicans think I'm sinful and need to be punished. While trying to stamp out stupidity is, well, stupid, trying to force people to be virtuous is downright dangerous.

While I'm not a fan of C.S. Lewis he did describe the danger of Republican-type controls. He said that "tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." A perfect example of this is the hateful Maggie Gallagher and her Mormon-funded antigay campaign. She really does believe she is saving gay people from themselves so she is unrelentingly intrusive. If ever we need a face for the Nanny State, Maggie's fat mug ought to be used.

The voting public is not divided into two camps: Democrats and Republicans. It is divided into three: the latter two plus independents. Of those groups the independents are the largest. And the independents are the mushy libertarians personified. The Democrats tend to not have the moralistic agenda of the intrusive Republicans but the Republicans don't tend to have the central-planning mindset of the Democrats.

On any particular issue the majority of the population tends to lean libertarian. For instance, with taxes, most Republicans and Independents oppose high rates thus the majority leans for less taxation. When it comes to government enforced "Christian" values the Democrats and Independents tend to oppose such big government intrusions while the Republicans, in the clutches of the American Taliban, are hysterical proponents of such moral authoritarianism.

The problem is that the political elites in the parties tend not to give their voters what they want. Witness how the Republicans betrayed free markets and low taxes every time they have controlled the government. Witness also how Obama has not done anything of substance to bring the sort of equal rights in sexual orientation that he promised. Both betray the party base that keeps them in power.

What keeps the party base loyal to the two dominant parties is fear: fear of the other party. The Democratic base fears the Republicans will push their moralistic agenda on everyone—and rightly so. The Republcians were terrified that the Democrats would push for higher taxes, more regulation and more state control—and rightly so. So the voting public swings back and forth, first electing Democrats then getting disgusted with them and electing Republicans. But the Republicans prove to be equally disgusting and voters swing back to the Democrats.

The American public is being tag-teamed by the two major parties. Each jumps into the ring and beats up the public for a bit before being replaced by the other. The Democrats may use a few well-placed left hooks to blacken the eyes of the public and then the Republicans "save" them by using a few right-hooks to break their nose. American partisan politics is now in the position where neither party represents the dominant few on most issues.

Most Americans would bring the troops home, neither party is willing to do that. On civil liberties the anti-freedom Republicans tend to dominate and Democrats are afraid of standing up to them. On economic liberties the anti-freedom Democrats tend to dominate and Republicans, well, Republicans have just learned to love big government and use it to enrich themselves.

So the real story of American politics is that the two giants in the political arena are both in opposition to the vast middle ground of American politics. Neither the Democrats, nor the Republicans are willing to cater to that mushy libertarianism that dominates the views of the public. And sadly, these days the Libertarian Party isn't doing that very well either. But they are an irrelevancy and will remain such.

If either the GOP or the Democrats get the nerve to tell their base to fuck off there is hope for the country. The first party to jettison the extreme statists and embrace this mushy libertarianism is likely to be in power for some time. So far neither has the courage to do that.