Sharron Angel & Christine O'Donnell Move The Tea Party To The Center

A curious thing has happened as Tea Party-supported candidates for the Senate in several GOP races have won their nominations.

The victors, including Christine O'Donnell of Delaware and Sharron Angel of Nevada, have corrected the mainstream media's depiction of the Tea Party as a right-wing fringe group of nutcases.

Instead, both candidates, and, I'm sure, others, have correctly described their Tea Party supporters as simply mainstream, independent voters who are fed up with the same ever-expanding federalism they get from professional politicians and federal office-holders of both parties.

As much as I admired and liked George W. Bush, and, for that matter, his father, for several things they did, and for what they supported, they both helped expand the federal welfare state. So has the Republican-controlled Senate and House in recent years.

Tea Party activists aren't a splinter group of crazy idealogues. Rather, their- our- ideas are currently popular and credible: shrink the size, scope, taxes, borrowing and spending of our federal government. Restore the federal government back to its minimalist role as a jointly-agreed upon single entity, by vote of the states, which implements the necessary- and only the necessary- federal actions which are required by the United States.

Many of us who have attended Tea Party events and donated time or money to candidates voicing these views see the federal government as having been improperly become an entity unto itself. Perhaps the best example of how this has perverted the Constitution is the so-called Supremacy Doctrine, whereby, whenever the federal government chooses to weigh in on an issue, it automatically supercedes states rights.

Somewhere in the past century, the limits of federal power were conveniently ignored, so that the federal officials insert themselves in matters of dubious legitimacy.

It's sufficiently noxious to merit its own amendment. And, with a little luck, may bring that about in reaction.

But back to the main point. This sort of federal overreach is why Tea Partiers aren't a fringe. Most Americans are appalled at the last 19 months of federal autocracy, and want their country and government back.

O'Donnell and Angel are merely two Senate candidates who understand that their views and those of the Tea Party activists are far more prevalent than mainstream media outlets, and, sadly, even the GOP, dare acknowledge.

David Malpass' Primary Defeat In NY

I was saddened to read of David Malpass' defeat in New York's GOP Senate primary.

Malpass is a very astute, credentialed, politically aware economist. Late of Bear Stearns, Malpass was a frequent guest on CNBC, where his frank and sensible comments were a delight to hear and watch.

Perhaps the silver lining of his defeat is a return to a business channel I watch. But New York and the Senate and, thus, the nation will be poorer for that.

Conventional GOP vs. Tea Party Candidates

Much is being made of in the media of the various Tea Party primary victories in the wake of Tuesday's election.

Perhaps, most notably, Delaware Tea Party Republican Senatorial candidate Christine O'Donnell's triumph over moderate GOP veteran Mike Castle.

Yahoo's homepage, never one to be neutral, screamed out this headline,

"Tea party victory endangers GOP’s goal of retaking the Senate"

At the end of the website's heavily partisan 'news' story about O'Donnell's primary win, this appeared regarding the national GOP's reticence to spend money on her general campaign,

"Not that she cares.
"They have a losing track record," O'Donnell told CNN Tuesday night. "If they're too lazy to put in the effort that we need to win, then so be it." "

Meanwhile, yesterday morning, alleged grafter and (too) long-serving Pennsylvania Democratic Representative Paul Kandorski gave Castle the ultimate kiss of death, calling him "an EXCELLENT Congressman."

That alone should be testimony to Castle's vulnerability. A Democratic Congressman suspected of some multi-million dollar corruption at the expense of the federal treasury endorsing him as a great guy.

But let's get back to O'Donnell's comment.

I, along with, I am sure, many other conservatively-inclined independents, have given much thought to the conundrum of preferring potentially unelectable conservative GOP candidates, often backed or inspired by Tea Partiers, to liberal-to-moderate political veterans who may be much more certain of beating their Democratic opponent in November.

Recently, I read a Wall Street Journal editorial which paraphrased the late Barry Goldwater as counseling conservatives to 'vote for the most conservative candidate.....who,' but I can't now recall, nor find the quote to verify, how it finished,

"is running," or "who is electable?"

I think it was the latter. And this is the issue at hand.

The conundrum of the GOP primary voter is different from that of the same voter as an independent in a general election, as I wrote here.

O'Donnell is implicitly standing for principles. She has, in effect, said,

'Vote for me. I'll do what I say. Mike Castle will waffle and is likely to side with liberals.'

And the media chides the GOP for letting principled conservatives, who have nowhere else to go, 'shrink the party's tent.' As if electing unreliable Republican Senators is better than electing liberal Democrats.

After considerable reflection, I come down on the side of voting in primaries for the most conservative Republican running. In New Jersey's last gubernatorial primary, that was not Chris Christie. I voted against Christie in the primary, but for him in the general election.

If I lived in Delaware, I'd have voted for O'Donnell. If she loses the general election, then Delaware wasn't ready to be represented in the Senate by a conservative, and the GOP didn't do a good job finding and backing a reliable conservative for the Delaware Senate seat.

How many Jim Jeffords, Arlen Specters, Lincoln Chafees, Susan Collins' and Olympia Snowes do Republican voters need to elect to learn not to trust the fence-sitting Eastern US "moderates?"

The media hopes to keep the GOP as a pale copy of the liberal Democratic party by coaxing it to nominate, back and elect liberal Republicans.

But what independents want is a break from both parties creating a socialistic, European-style State with a capital S.

Preferring unelectable conservatives to electable, but untrustworthy liberal Republicans, shows a stand for the principles so many Americans feel have been lost by politicians of both parties. Particularly Republicans.

After all, Democrats have never, in my lifetime, espoused smaller government and greater personal liberty and freedom. Republicans have, if only periodically.

Christine O'Donnell embodies the hopes of independents and conservative Republicans, regardless of her ability to win the general election.

I, for one, am not so sure a GOP Senate majority composed of the likes of Mike Castle will please me- or most independents. It probably will only frustrate me marginally less than a Democratically-controlled one.

Ideally, I want a GOP caucus of more than 50 Senators who will toss Mitch McConnell and his team out, put Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint into power, and really go about shrinking the federal government.

I don't think Mike Castle would do that. Perhaps Delaware conservatives should continue working to find an electable conservative, rather than be disappointed by Castle's probably defection on the tough votes in the Senate.

More Mediocrity: Lance Re-Nominated

I did my part yesterday to try to throw one the bums out who currently resides in our House of Representatives.

Regrettably, the bum in question, Republican Leonard Lance, fended off three more conservative challengers to run for a second House term.

According to a news article detailing Lance's and Freylinghausen's escape from defeat by Tea Party-related challengers, New Jersey's latent moderate politics was the reason for their reprieve.

Funny, but living in one of the four worst-managed states, in terms of debt and tax levels, that sense of moderation just doesn't ring true.

I am now faced with an unpleasant choice between voting for a Republican idiot, or voting for whichever Democrat faces him, just to toss the incumbent.

Right now, I'm seriously leaning toward the Democrat, which is very hard for me to believe.

But Lance is that distasteful and repugnant that I'm left with no alternative.

Voting Leonard Lance Out

I live in a Congressional district represented by one of those old, wily, milquetoast Republicans named Leonard Lance.

I first, and last, wrote about the twit in this post back in October of last year. His current ads and fliers all portray him as Tea-Party friendly, against big government, etc., etc. The videos show his grinning visage as he takes some walk in the park with a woman I assume to be his wife.

Like the state's senior, nearly-dead Senator, Lautenberg, Lance looks like he already belongs in a pine box. The type of professional politician I have come to hate. Merely for being a professional second-rate pol.

As my prior, linked post noted, it's unlikely Lance even understands the bulk of the bills on which he has voted.

Though I don't consider myself a party member, I am a registered Republican, else I could not vote in primaries.

Thus, for the first time in ages, I had the pleasure of voting for someone besides the incumbent Representative in a GOP primary. And I surely did just that.

Truth to tell, among the three challengers, I only recognized one name. It was a guy who apparently didn't file several years of tax returns. So it fell to a choice between the other two challengers to Lance.

I chose the one who was not what the ballot described as "Mainstream" Republican.

It was quite a pleasure to cast a vote against Lance, and, yet, still for a non-Democrat.

I'm hoping Lance loses today. Can't wait to see the post-poll closing tabulations.

Primary Day & Carly Fiorina

My posts from last December regarding Carly Fiorina, here and here, have been among the most-views posts on this blog for at least the past three months.

One of them- the first, I believe- actually made it onto the Huffington Post as a link.

Perhaps, after today, the viewing of these posts will ebb. Then, again, if Fiorina beats her opponents, and faces Boxer in the November general election, the views will rise even more.

Either way, I'm going to be watching those California results.

Senate Races & Wonderboy's Corrupt Administration

First Joe Sestak accused Wonderboy's crew of trying to buy him out of running against Arlen Specter with a job offer.

Now Andrew Romanoff, a Democratic primary challenger to Colorado Senator Michael Bennet, has joined in with allegations that Rahm Emanuel's aide, Jim Messina, offered several jobs to Romanoff, none of for which he was remotely qualified.

The usual Democratic pundits, who would have suggested crucifying George W. Bush for this sort of behavior, are justifying Wonderboy's illegal jobs bribes as just 'business as usual.'

Funny, but wasn't the First Rookie supposed to be running the most transparent, a- and post-partisan administration in history?

Ah, well. On to reality.

The details of the Sestak case have finally come out, despite the Congressional Democrats' refusal to convene any sort of inquiry. On an evening during Memorial Day weekend, the administration released an explanation that involved no less than Bubba Clinton. They didn't deny the job offers, but they claimed using the pump-headed ex-president as a cutout, as if that makes them innocent of trying to bribe Sestak.

From what I've read, sadly, it would be difficult to imprison Emanuel or Wonderboy, because there isn't enough solid evidence that there were quid quo pros.

However, in Romanoff's case, there may be a case. It seems that, thanks to existing legislation, it's illegal for a government employee to use paid time and/or resources to engage in political activity. And nobody has tried to deny that these bribes of jobs to primary candidates were political, because many, including various Democratic pundits, have defended Wonderboy's actions as befitting the head of his party.

On a related note, there's now more belief that Emanuel, who will be appearing on the stand in disgraced former Illinois governor Blagojevich' trial for attempting to sell Wonderboy's Senate seat, was the go-between in that situation.

Wouldn't it be rich if both Emanuel and his deputy, Messina, both do jail time for carrying illegal water for their boss, the world's most ethical politician?

California's GOP Senate Primary & Tea Parties

A weekend editorial by Allysia Finley in the Wall Street Journal decried the Tea Party members' effects on the California GOP Senate primary next week.

In her well-written piece, Ms. Finley suggested that Tea Party enthusiasts may be responsible for nominating a middle-of-the-roader, Tom Campbell, as they doubt Carly Fiorina's credentials, but can't deliver sufficient support for Chuck DeVore to nominate him.

I found it all a bit too hysterical. Having been to two Tea Party events since last October, both at the US Capitol, I can't say that I find the movement, such as it is, to be much more than a crystallization of conservative disgust with high taxes, too much government spending and a lack of a sense of reality by elected representatives of either party.

If you removed the words "Tea Party" from Ms. Finley's piece, it would merely describe a not atypical choice among voters in many elections.

I faced such a choice in New Jersey's general election for Governor last November. Chris Christie wasn't the true conservative in that race. He was the GOP moderate, well to the left of a much more conservative independent whose name I now cannot even recall. Corzine, of course, was the sitting uber-liberal.

Anytime three candidates vie for an office or nomination, you're going to have an unstable dynamic which can allow the moderate to triumph.

Isn't that part of our political system? Doesn't it discriminate for the majority, which is rarely rabidly conservative or liberal?

What's so unusual about next week's California GOP Senate race, in that regard?

Nothing at all.

But it seems to be yet another opportunity for someone to wring their hands about the "Tea Partiers" and their destructive effect upon yet another election.

New Hope For Dethroning Carolyn Maloney!

I was positively elated to read in yesterday's Wall Street Journal that Carolyn Maloney, a dunce Representative from NY, is being challenged in the primaries by a young Indian Democratic woman.

How refreshing! This mossback has actually been in the seat for 17 years.

Additionally, there are actually several Republicans running in their primary to meet the Democratic winner in November.

Wouldn't it be a treat to see Reshma Saujani take on either Dino LaVerghetta or Ryan Brumberg, the two GOP candidates, in the November elections?

Ms. Saujani is a hedge fund lawyer who was quoted in the Journal piece saying,

"Eighty percent of Congress did not know what a basis point was before the crisis."

She deplores the lack of Congress members with real business experience, and Maloney certainly fits that description. Many years ago, around the time of Atilla the Hun, Maloney was a NYC public school teacher. But she quickly forsook that calling to become a union official, then worked her way up the New York metro area political ladder to Congressional Representative. It's been well over a quarter of a century since Maloney really worked for a living. And even that job was a public sector one.

With any luck, the combined lack of sensitivity on the part of Maloney, Kristin Hillebrand and Chuck Schumer to voter outrage may result in the first being dethroned by someone more aware of the current economic and political climate, with the others to follow.

Another Presidential Election Molded by Our Nations' Fringe Elements

I was speaking with a friend last night, as we watched the Florida primary results.

Now, less than a month into 2008, each party's race is down to only two contenders. As a New Jersey resident, once again, most of my choices have been taken away from my by a weird fringe element of other US voters.

Why religious-oriented hayseeds and ethanol-barons from Iowa? Why one of the smallest, by population, states in the union, New Hampshire? A state, much of whose income is derived by residents who work in a neighboring state.

Michigan? A once-great, now threadbare state of auto workers looking for aid from the other 49?.

South Carolina? What's so special about that state? More religiosity, distinctly regional cultural values, and probably not a representative ethnic mix.

Florida? C'mon. Retiree-loaded, as well as heavily populated with ex- and current military personnel.

In truth, what state or states are appropriate as early primary states? None.

My friend and I bemoaned that, while living in a heavily-populated state, we've been disenfranchised by some extremists in states we rarely even visit. I don't think we even get in on "super Tuesday." Maybe the second one- I don't really even know. Or care, now.

In fact, here's some statistics to ponder. From the 2000 US Census, which listed US total population as 281 million,

Iowa 3MM
NH 1
Michigan 10
South Carolina 4
Florida 16
Total 34 million

That means five states, with a total of just 12% of our total population, are responsible for eliminating some 60% of each party's Presidential hopefuls.

How is this fair to anyone? To candidates, or voters? It means 88 out of every 100 voters don't get to choose from the original, declared full slate of their party's Presidential candidates in each election.

Isn't it time both parties moved to a single-day, omni-state primary system? What the hell is so special about Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina? Aren't the first two now simply using the quadrennial election as an excuse to boost their economies?

Let's be fair and strip them of this baseless privilege. Let's push our parties to simply designate one, nation-wide primary day. Just like the first Tuesday of every fourth November is the single date for our country's general elections for President.

Instead of silly media-stoked 'momentum' plays by candidates, they'd actually have to disseminate their single, unchanged positions and characteristics to voters for a single date of destiny.

Makes quite a bit more sense to me than the current system, in which we allow a few self-anointed, extreme bellwethers to dictate to the rest of us what candidates among whom we may choose for our party's Presidential nomination.