Trendy Politics and the GOP

As for now, the Democratic Party holds a numerical dominance in Congress, plus the Presidency. With the failure of the McCain campaign, the tarnished legacy of Bush, and the Democratic take over of Congress in 2006, we can conclude old the Republican Party of Reagan is now over. With a two party system, it is utterly impossible for the Democrats to stay in complete power for very long, even with the GOP completely vanquished. This early into Obama's Presidency, the Republican Party has not shown many signs of reformation that will lead to it's return. However, Congressman Aaron Schock of Illinois' 18th district may be a clue as to what the Republican Party will look like in a few years. Schock is the youngest member of Congress at age 27, having taken office last January. He is a fiscal conservative, having voted against Obama's stimulus package in February, and a moderate social conservative to generalize his policies. He has also been known to reach out to groups which are not typically Republican. More importantly, Schock has a growing celebrity status based on his youth, having been caught in paparazzi clips on TMZ as if he were a hollywood actor. This is similar to the celebrity status surrounding Obama as well. Policy aside, the importance of image in American politics cannot be denied. While Obama's policies were generally favorable to voters, it cannot be denied that his charismatic image and bridging of popular culture and politics gave him a great advantage. What the emergence of Aaron Schock could strangely mean is that one of the forms the GOP may return in is the "hip" domain pioneered and occupied by Democrats only. The charisma of the Republican politically incorrect grandfather figure like Reagan and McCain has clearly lost much of it's appeal. The age old hardliner old man image of the GOP that goes back even beyond Theodore Roosevelt, may finally be over, or atleast heavily augmented. While Schock will not even be old enough to challenge Obama in four years, nor has he shown a strong desire to be a lifelong politician, he could stur up enough dust to change the face of the GOP. If more celebrity like Republicans enter the public eye, there could be a Republican Obama figure in the future who would change the face of the party forever, and lead to it's return.

Rush, Tea, and the Republican Party

I suppose I'm not trying very hard by starting with a shot at Rush Limbaugh, but sometimes it's a little too tempting. After viewing his website's transcripts from the previous week's broadcasts, I noticed some painfully predictable similarities in them. As one can imagine, nearly every transcript is a criticism of every breath Obama has taken since January. Some factual, most not. The end all goal here is simple...convince enough people over the next 3 1/2 years not to reelect him. It is hard to be swade by someone who's primary objective has been to discredit a president since before he had come to office, and it unlikely that this trend in conservative commentators will effect undecided voters in the next election. What Limbaugh and many other commentators do not realize is that the American voters loves a victim. Obama was by far the most passive candidate throughout the entire presidential race, as was McCain during the Republican primaries, which changed immediately after. Even Bush's 2004 election can be attributed to being on the defensive from Kerry most of the time, despite a tarnished reputation and public approval ratings. The fact of the matter is, the American voter hates a bully, loves a victim, and gets annoyed very easily. The "tea parties" have done more for Obama in 2012 than anything else thus far I'm sure. Perhaps it's part of Vietnam's legacy that public demonstrations of any kind do nothing but counter their cause, especially in this case when its a lightly veiled way of saying "we want a reason to hate the president". Most simply do not want to associate themselves with such people, and will not side with a candidate who is backed by them. If the Republican Party wants to return to the fabled glory of Reaghan, they will need to rethink their party line and voter base entirely. For now it is nothing more than futile attempts at descrediting Obama at every corner, rather than finding counter philosophies different from Bush's failed trickle down approach. It is entirely understandable that Republicans are confused as to where to turn, as the party is now lacking a large enough support base for another presidential election, but another major realignment of voters the way it happened last time does not just happen without reason. The last realignment came as a result of the catastrophic failures of the Bush administration, which was based on a legitimate reality, not democratic propaganda.
Links Used: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042909/content/01125108.guest.html

Soda Tax

The Senate has recently taken into consideration a tax on sodas and other sugary soft drinks to pay for health care costs. I believe this is a great idea, and hopefully the it is the beginning in a line of similar taxes aimed at unhealthy food and eventually make America lose the weight gained in the past ten years, and lower health care costs. The tax will begin at a mere 3 cents, any is only predicted to lower consumption by 1 percent. However, cigarette taxes began low as well, and gradually worked their way up to the constructively ridiculous levels they are at today. Taxes on cigarettes have been more constructive than any of the propaganda used to prevent smoking. Of course, there will probably not ever be an anti-soda propaganda industry anyhow. Americans love their soda, and the best, and possibly only way this can be changed is through excessive taxation. This of course hits two birds with one stone, granting more funds to health care, and making the country healthier, thus needing less health care.

Link Used: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/12/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5009316.shtml

US Radio Host Michael Savage Included on UK's "Least Wanted" List

Currently the United Kingdom has posted its "least wanted" list. This is a group of individuals the UK belives pose a threat to its' national security and democratic interests. Among these individuals is an American radio host, Michael Savage. Cnn.com states that reason for Savage being on the list is due to him "seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence." However, Savage is striking back and possibly may even present a legal case against the UK.
Savage cites partiotism as his main reason for the things he has previously said, and believes England has no right to attempt to silence him. However, the UK contends that Savage is an extremist and posts and immediate danger. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith is adament on keeping Savage on the list and explains, "Coming to the UK is a privilege, and I refuse to extend that privilege to individuals who abuse our standards and values to undermine our way of life," Smith said. "Therefore, I do not hesitate to name and shame those who foster extremist views, as I want them to know that they are not welcome here."
Attourneys in England are salivating over the opportunity to represent Savage and other list memebers in order to "set the record straight and win quite a large settlement." Other members of the list as reported by cnn.com include:
The Rev. Fred Phelps and his daughter, Shirley Phelps-Roper, for "engaging in unacceptable behavior and fostering hatred." Phelps and his followers at Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, oppose homosexuality. They picket the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq, saying their deaths are God's way of punishing the United States for supporting homosexuals. They have expressed similar views about the victims of the September 11, 2001, attacks and Hurricane Katrina.
Former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard Don Black, who established the white supremacist Web site Stormfront. The Home Office called it one of the oldest and largest hate group sites.
Erich Gliebe, chairman of the National Alliance, one of the largest neo-Nazi groups in the U.S. The Home Office accused Gliebe of "justifying terrorist violence, provoking others to commit serious crime and fostering racial hatred."
Samir al Quntar, a Lebanese man who spent three decades in prison for killing four Israeli soldiers and a 4-year-old girl in 1979. The Home Office lists al Quntar for "engaging in unacceptable behavior by seeking to foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence" to provoke terrorist acts.
Nasr Javed, a leader of the Kashmiri militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba.
Islamic clerics Abdul Ali Musa, Abdullah Qadri Al Ahdal, Amir Siddique, Yunis Al Astal and Safwat Hijazi.
Wadgy Abd El Hamied Mohamed Ghoneim, whom the Home Office describes as a prolific writer and speaker. The Home Office said he has sought "to foment, justify or glory terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs and to provoke others to commit terrorist acts."

Although it is clear that some of the list members do deserve to be on such a list, it is still unique for the UK to publically name such intentions. Herein lies the problem. Where does national security go to far? Should all nations have such lists or do they only provoke more anger and bigger threats from those who are on them? Only the furture can tell that story. However, regardless of the outcome, Michael Savage contends he will not be silenced. "I'm a patriotic American, and if that's a crime in England, God help us all."

The Future of the Republican party

Since the beginning of time political parties in America have clashed on wide ranging views in order to appeal to the masses and gather as much support as possible. Some of these issues are abortion, gun control, wars, immigration, and more recently rights for same sex couples. The battle over the issue of gay rights has waged on for the better part of the last 10 years and I don't see an end in sight. The problem here, lies within the Republican Party. The party of Reagan and Lincoln, a party that once stood for equality is now a party in ruin following the biggest political collapse in the history of the United States. If the Republican Party wishes to regain its strength they'll need to appeal more towards the "middle" if they have any shot of challenging the Democrats, who now have an edge both in seats in Congress as well as a psychological edge over the Republicans.

Historically the Republicans have had more people elected President than the Democrats (18-13). That number was only made possible by the "dynasty" the Republicans achieved when Richard Nixon was elected in 1968 (took office in 1969) starting a long run of Republican Presidents. Including Nixon's election in 1968, the Republicans won 4 of 7 Presidential elections. These Presidents were Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. (they had 5 of 7 Presidents but Gerald Ford took over for Nixon following his resignation in 1974).

The above paragraph clearly shows that the Republican dynasty was really thriving, 5 out of 7 Presidents really says something about what their party was all about. The key word being was. As we all know in 2000 George W. Bush was narrowly elected President (500,000 votes) over former Vice President Al Gore (thanks Florida). During the Bush Presidency things really took a downward turn for the Republican Party. Through a series of events (PATRIOT Act, war crimes, Geneva Convention violations, torture, etc) George Bush really tarnished the image of the Republican Party. This was evident in the congressional elections beginning in 2006. Prior to these elections the Republicans held leads in the House and Senate 232-202 and 55-45 respectively. After the 2006 elections, not only did the Republicans lose their leads in both houses, they were no longer in the majority. The seats were allotted 232-202 and 51-49 for the Democrats. After their huge turnaround in 2006, the Democrats steamrolled into 2008 with hopes of gaining a stranglehold in government with the election of a Democratic President as well as increasing their leads in Congress. In the congressional and senatorial elections the Democrats increased their leads in the House and Senate 257-178 and 58-41(the senatorial race in Minnesota is still ongoing) respectively. The goals of the Democrats were completed when Sen. Barack Obama defeated Sen. John McCain in the third largest landslide elections in US history (365-173), 3rd only to Bill Clinton's victories in 1996 (379-159) and again in 1992 (370-168).

If the Republican Party wishes to regain its "mojo" they're going to have move more towards the center of the political spectrum. Their base is to the right, which doesn't appeal to very many people in the United States. It's a time of desperation for the Republicans. This was clear with john McCain's selection of Sarah Palin for his VP. She doesn't appeal to very many people, let alone women which is the underlying cause for her being selected. McCain was hoping to scoop up the disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters following her loss to eventual President elect Barack Obama. This plan failed miserably and was doomed from the start. If the Republicans continue to grasp for any sign of hope instead of focusing on how to restructure their party they will continue to struggle against the Democrats in the upcoming elections.

Link to Economic Crisis Is Vital to Obama Agenda

The Obama administration has been accused of exploiting the economic crisis. While Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, is saying that the link to the economic crisis is vital to the Obama agenda. Conservatives are saying that the administration is using the crisis as an opportunity for action that does not normally exist.
Even though Obama currently “holds the upper hand” in the polls opposed to the republicans who are appearing chaotic and desperate. He is still moving fast for good reason, political history shows that time is not on his side. President Obama wants action in 2009 on both fronts. He has seen his predecessors’ political capital decline after their first years in office and knows he has to act fast.
As team Obama starts in on his initiatives on health care, energy, education, the auto and financial industries as responses to the crisis. Republicans are saying the recession is just an excuse for big-government ambitions that liberals have failed to achieve for decades. Accusing the Obama administration with using the 800 billion dollar economic stimulus plan to pursue what Wall Street Journal editorialists called a “40-year wish list” for liberals.
Last week a survey showed that 52 percent believed that President Obama had taken on “too many other issues” besides the economy. This is exactly the reason why he found himself defending government investments in banks and auto companies. “I want to disabuse people of this notion that somehow we enjoy meddling in the private sector,” he said.
However some democrats are unhappy with Mr. Emanuel’s “crisis” statements believing that he has just given the republicans “a cudgel for battering their motives.” Mr. Emanuel voiced no regrets, saying “it is plain that national crises create opportunities for action that do not normally exist.”
As Mr. Emanuel said about President Obama’s goal long before his first 100 days, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste,” is exactly what the Bush administration did with the crisis to invade Iraq. They are not letting their window of opportunity go to waste. In policy making you have to wait for your window of opportunity to open and that is exactly what is happening.
The link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/us/politics/04causus.html?ref=us