Surely 2010 will go down in American history books as one of the more interesting years in American history.

2010 is in many ways a lot like both 1884 and 1992.

1884 gave us the Mugwumps - conservative and moderate Republicans that revolted and openly distanced themselves from the official choices of the Republican Party. In many cases the Mugwumps actively worked against Republican candidates, this includes even the Republican nominee for president. Unlike today, Mugwumps were a top down revolt of Republicans already elected that thought the party was on the wrong path.

1992 – how quickly we forget the anger that existed, to include real concern about our national debt. National polling shows that Americans were much more “angry” at the government back in 1992, significantly much more angry. That anger got channeled however through the candidacy of Ross Perot who stepped forward and very explicitly challenged the political establishment — with charts and predictions in hand Ross Perot made a difference. We later got “Contract with America” which turned out to be: vote us in, we promise to use all of your favorite buzzwords, and then we’ll do what is best for the party.

Ross Perot got my vote and the vote of 19% of America in 1992.

The lessons of 1884 and 1992 are that populist movements to reform government are usually shortlived. They can linger on for a few years; Ross Perot later formally founded the Reform Party which actually won some elections. We have some few remaining elected officials here in Virginia that are officially Reform Party … this is now a party footnoted in history.

Without structure and organization there is no future for a movement. Perhaps even with structure there is no future; witness the inability of the Libertarian Party to connect, or the Constitutionalist Party — the “fastest growing party in America” as it bills itself … I don’t think so.

So here we are at 2010. Anger we have plenty of, but alas no Ross Perot to represent us or any central personality capable of convincing America that someone with a name cares. There is no cross-generational Ronald Reagan, whom we literally had decades to know and to mature with and to evolve with. 2010 is all about chaos, impending financial entropy on a scale that we cannot yet imagine … although some are trying hard.

2010 is all about having to represent ourselves against the machine — and the machine is both red and blue.

Tea or coffee? Coffee or Tea?

Until now I have been uninvolved in the TEA Party movement. I don’t do anger. Anger blinds you and makes you do silly stuff. I’m a solutions person. I have never let not knowing what I am doing get in the way of achieving something. Until recently the TEA Party movement has largely been against and not for anything. That is changing.

The TEA movement is maturing, and now that the Republicans (Romney/Rove/Steele) have informed TEA Partyers that they really are Republicans and that they should act accordingly, there is more sober thought among TEAers to consider what comes next. Conservative Texas’ voter thumping of TEA candidates has also caused many TEAers to pause and to reflect.

Now comes this new creature: the Coffee Party. The premise of Coffee is that government is not the enemy. It may not have the answer, but it is not the enemy.

We are the government. If it is wrong then we are wrong. Coffee suggests that ‘we the people’ should focus our energies on helping guide government by being both its watchdog and by being involved. We must do more than be angry. We must be part of the solution.

So for me I will now get involved in both. Although many in TEA distrust Coffee, and certainly Coffee is in reaction to TEA, we are at a crossroads in American history. They both are a distraction and yet they both may hold answers.

One thing is certain: 2010 is the chapter that follows 1884 and 1992.

BTW #2 – Republicans claim to be serious about passing some form of a Balanced Budget Amendment if only we give them the chance. Really? Those two wild and crazy South Carolinians Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint (both R-SC) introduced a Balanced Budget Amendment in 2007. Surely you remember!? Don’t you? Surely you do. Anyway, Republicans always run to this ploy when politically in trouble. I believe that Graham and DeMint were serious about it — but where was the rest of the party?

One interesting side aspect of the retirement of Senator Bayh is how his spot will be filled on the ballot.

Under Indiana law a candidate seeking a spot on the ballot has to get 4,500 signatures (500 from each of the states nine congressional districts) before the filing deadline, which is this Friday.

If nobody does that then the partycentral committee has until June 30th to pick a nominee.

However if anyone, even a fringe candidate, manages to get the signatures by Friday then, at least in theory, they would be the nominee.

One Democrat has been gathering signatures. If she gets them submitted by Friday and nobody else does….

Certainly an unlikely scenario but….

 

On January 19th, the very night Scott Brown won the MA special election, Sen. Evan Bayh said, “[t]here’s going to be a tendency on the part of our people to be in denial about all this, if you lose Massachusetts and that’s not a wake-up call, there’s no hope of waking up.” Read more »

America’s national debt is uberlarge; the world’s largest. Our national debt is larger than the economies of many countries. Read more »

For years, ever since I announced that I was a Republican, people have asked me “how can you be a Republican?” Â In their words “Republicans are racist.”

I’ve done more than a few posts on the quest by some in the GOP to want shrink the so-called “Big Tent.” Many of us have looked at how the Democrats have been able to welcome both liberals and moderates in the party.

However, two articles from two Democrats show that the Left is having its own problems on trying to reach and keep moderates and also please its base.

On Christmas Eve, former Commerce Secretary William Daley wrote in the Washington Post about trying to keep the Dems open to all viewpoints. He notes that Democratic wins in 2006 and 2008 was because the party reached out beyond its liberal base. It was because of the Big Tent, that Dems started winning in Republican-leaning districts for the first time in a long time. But all is now well in the party of FDR. Daley notes that currently liberals in the party are attacking their Centrist brothers and sisters for not being pure enough.

On the one hand, centrist Democrats are being vilified by left-wing bloggers, pundits and partisan news outlets for not being sufficiently liberal, “true” Democrats. On the other, Republicans are pounding them for their association with a party that seems to be advancing an agenda far to the left of most voters.

The political dangers of this situation could not be clearer.

Witness the losses in New Jersey and Virginia in this year’s off-year elections. In those gubernatorial contests, the margin of victory was provided to Republicans by independents — many of whom had voted for Obama. Just one year later, they had crossed back to the Republicans by 2-to-1 margins.

For Daley, the solution is to realize that what might be the agenda of the liberal base might not be the agenda of all Americans:

All that is required for the Democratic Party to recover its political footing is to acknowledge that the agenda of the party’s most liberal supporters has not won the support of a majority of Americans — and, based on that recognition, to steer a more moderate course on the key issues of the day, from health care to the economy to the environment to Afghanistan.

For liberals to accept that inescapable reality is not to concede permanent defeat. Rather, let them take it as a sign that they must continue the hard work of slowly and steadily persuading their fellow citizens to embrace their perspective. In the meantime, liberals — and, indeed, all of us — should have the humility to recognize that there is no monopoly on good ideas, as well as the long-term perspective to know that intraparty warfare will only relegate the Democrats to minority status, which would be disastrous for the very constituents they seek to represent.

Nonsense, says Robert Creamer, in the Huffington Post. The political organizer sees any attempt to become more “moderate” as nothing more than bowing to the political interests that got us into this mess called the “Great Recession.” Creamer believes the nation voted for substantial change is the Democrats must deliver on this change:

“Moderating” our goals is not a recipe for victory. It is a recipe for failure. Last fall, voters overwhelming voted for change, and they knew then — and still know now — the kind of change they wanted.

They wanted to end the stranglehold of the private insurance companies that continues to put every American a single illness — or one layoff — away from financial catastrophe. They want to take bold, clear action to assure that America is in the forefront of creating the clean energy jobs of the future — and leave a thriving healthy planet to our children. They wanted to fundamentally change the bull-in-the-china shop foreign policy of the Bush years and re-establish American leadership in the world. Most importantly, they rejected the failed economic policies that allowed the recklessness of huge Wall Street banks to plunge the economy into free fall — and cost millions their livelihoods. They desperately want leadership that will lay the foundation for long term, bottom-up, widely shared prosperity.

In other words they wanted… and still want… fundamental change.

Why does this all sound so familiar to me?

I think what Daley and Creamer show is that polarization really is taking place within the two parties, leaving those not “pure” enough out in the cold. Both hard core liberals and conservatives feel they have a pulse on what America wants and misinterprets an election win for a mandate for radical change.

But of course, they don’t understand the outside because their whole political lives are spent inside a bubble of their own making. Moderates in both parties tend to be the ones that know that all of America isn’t Berkley or Alabama. They are the ones that have a foot in reality.

Maybe what could happen is that moderates in both parties get tired of being treated like crap and create one or two political parties that are more in tune with the pulse of America. One can hope.

Democrat Blue Dog John Tanner of Tennesse has unexpectedly announced he will retire in 2010.

This is the second retirement (the other being Dennis Moore of Kansas) of a Blue Dog Democrat in a marginal district and thus will likely present the GOP with a pickup opportunity.

UPDATE: State Senator Roy Herron is going to run.

I agree the race leans to the Democrats but they will have to work for it.

Want a third party? Lots of talk making the rounds about forming a third party.

You may even see some news stories saying half of all Americans want a 3rd political party. See page 13 of a recent NBC/WSJ poll that says 46% want a 3rd party (1).

Wanting is different that WANTING. It is no small task to start a third political party. The odds are also stacked against you being successful because you actually have to win elections or receive a huge number of votes before you become a full participant in the political process. Example: Ross Perot was able to participate in the 1992 presidential debates but was disqualified in 1996’s debates due to many factors that place special challenges in the path of third party success (2).

This question about wanting a third party has historically gotten a 45-51% support response. And “strongly” wants has always averaged 30%.

My Prediction

Republicans will run alternative candidates on as many “existing” third party tickets as possible in 2010, mostly against moderate Republicans. End result: Either a split vote leaving moderate Republicans losers or just the threat of a third party run scares off moderate Republicans that don’t have a firm storyline about what they believe and a strong relationship with their constituents. Third party end runs will only work in the South and the eastern seaboard.

Sources:

1 - http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/091027_NBCPoll.pdf

2 – In Ross Perot’s case, despite having got 18% of the presidential election vote in 1992, America’s Commission on Presidential Debates placed many hurdles in his path in 1996:Â he needed ballot status in all 50 states, his standing in the polls needed to reach a certain percentage, attendance levels at his rallies indicating he was a viable candidate with real supporters, a consideration of the likelihood that he will ever be president, and the opinions of a host of pundits on the value of his presence on the political scene (if he is just a spoiler then inclusion would be free publicity for a non-serious candidate).

If the Republican Party had just 25 more Ron Pauls we would be a saner, better party … it would actually be a political party of ideas and debate.

Back during ther summer, there was talk of “civil war” within the party. That was especially a favorite term of some ultra-conservatives like Governor Rick Perry in Texas.

Then these “civil war” Republicans got invited to TEA parties and all sorts of things so that they could strut their revolutionary stuff. Most of them ran for the hills. They didn’t really want a civil war. They just wanted the other parts of the party to sit down and to shut up — or better yet, to just leave.

However, Republicans have morphed a lot from the summer of 2009 and their reactionarism (June/July) to then being revolutionary (August/September) and are now balkanized (Oct).

Problem #1: National Republican leadership is almost non-existent. We have the equivalent of the Siegfried Line as national party strategy in which we are incapable of effective counterattack. We are locked behind our own lines. Our defense IS our attack as we have fortified our battlelines behind a nearly monolithic party line vote in Congress.

Problem #2: The Democrats don’t care about our strategy. They do not need to breech our lines to win the war. As for probing for weaknesses in the line we are doing that already for the Democrats.

Almost weekly 2 or 3 Republicans are pilloried as RINOs — and to what end? It weakens the wall further as the opponent on the other side is much less dreaded than the self-appointed commissars of political purity that are running amuck in their effort to cleanse the party and to prepare for the Gottdammerung battles of 2010 and 2012.

Problem #3: There are those within our ranks that are preparing for their own defection. They are setting up the scenarios that will let them slide out through the flanks and justify their own survival by reinventing themselves. Internal balkanization will surely follow the cliques that have formed.

Problem #4: Denial remains rampant as to how the Republican Party got to where it is today. This is where Ron Paul comes into the picture.

While I do not agree with everything proposed by Ron Paul, he is undoubtedly one of the very few truthsayers in the Republican Party today. I trust Ron Paul a lot more than I do the national Republican leadership.

Ron Paul has never been a go-along, get-along Republican. More important is that Ron Paul has principles. (They all say they do — but constant voting along party lines negates the existence of having principles).

Unlike some of our party leadership that will defend their principles when forced to, or when it seems politically a way to reinforce the ol’Siegfried, Ron Paul has taken very strong and specific stands on issues of national importance. He has largely lived his principles … and not just when it is politicaly convenient to do so.

The Future & Two Predictions

Republicans are hoping to hold their Siegfried Line until 2010 when they expect (are praying for) a huge groundswell of disappointment with the Obama Administration will cause them to make gains in Congress. History says that this is possible. However, some data that I am looking at says that the trends of history may fail us this time around, because we have learned the lessons of history: if you repeatedly get run over then maybe YOU have a problem. Stop blaming the other guy.

In preparation for 2010 some ultra-conservative Republicans are toying with the idea of a third party.

This third party idea is playing out right now in the battle for New York’s 23rd Congressional District. The local Republican Party picked a candidate that they thought would do well in battle against whomever the Democrats put up. The 23rd has traditionally voted Republican but is now only one of three congressional districts in New York with a Republican representative. In the last election the district went madly Democratic. Reality on the ground is that the New York Republican leadership looked for someone that appealed to New Yorkers, someone along the lines of Dede Scozzafava, a fiscally responsibile yet social liberal Republican … and that’s when the fight started.

Doug Hoffman, who remains a registered Republican and is not even a resident of District 23 (he lives in the 20th District, but this doesn’t matter in New York) choose to run under the flag of the New York Conservative Party. The battle has been ferocious.

New York Republicans are generally lining up behind Scozzafava and even Newt Gingrich has endorsed and campaigned for Scozzafava.

Yet, the battle of the 23rd District was joined on October 22nd by Sarah Palin reinforcing the candidacy of Doug Hoffman. So now we have a state-level party that is on its last legs in an attempt to remain players by electing Republicans and then a balkanized civil war breaks out.

This is all good stuff for the Democrats who may well now claim the 23rd District for the first time since 1993.

Sarah Palin said back in July 2009 that she planned to support candidates in elections based upon their beliefs and not on their party label. Kudos to Palin for having said and then doing what she said. The question really is whether this balkanization strategy is really just a prelude to her setting the stage for a 2012 independent run. (I can see Sarah Palin also as the Republican nominee, but only if about half the Republican Party becomes Democrats, and independent voters aren’t needed to win).

PREDICTION #1:
The economy will stablize during 2010, the Obama Administration will finally seem to get its act together and the Democrats will do well enough in the 2010 elections that they maintain or even gain slightly in Congress. 2010 will finish with the Democrats maintaining the ability to push through whatever bills they wish. (Lucky for us foodfights are common among Democrats so only half of what they would like to do has a chance.)

We Republicans will remain somewhat grumpily but comfortably behind the supposed safety of our Siegfried Line stewing in our own sauerkraut as we try to figure out what to do next for 2012.

PREDICTION #2:
2011 will be a very hurtful year for the American economy. We have staggering amounts of foreign debt that will be due. Tax receipts will have fallen and government services will be on the chopping block, unless we raise the national debt limit (No. No. No. Please, no!). 2010 will have proven to be a jobless recovery although we will have adjusted enough in our spending habits and lifestyle to make do. The U.S. dollar will finally fall from grace as the international reserve currency and that will unleash hell upon us.

So what about Ron Paul?

With exception of the few remaining New England Republicans, the thoughtful attempts by Lindsey Graham and John McCain to find some middle path and to create a national conversation, there is largely only Ron Paul actually talking about issues without following the lowest denominator approach of say nothing, take no risks that is the Boehner-McConnell party line.

Ron Paul is important because his libertarian approach provides principles upon which many in the party should look to if we are to be a real party. We must challenge our leadership. We must refuse the vote the party line just because it is a thorn in the Democrats side as we are trying to buy time.

The forces of Gottdammerung approach and we will only be a successful party once we can openly discuss and openly disagree and openly challenge the orthodoxy of whatever we were/mostly still are.

Some conservation is happening but only as the forces of balkanization now attempt to write George Bush off as a “Deformed Conservative”. Those who enabled him are also “deformed conservatives” per a recent American Conservative magazine article.

Umm, has anyone noticed that all of those “deformed conservatives” are largely still in power, except for Bush and Cheney? It would be nice to expand the conversation a bit beyond just whom we wish to blame our defeats upon. A constant state of denial should not be a worthy political principle to aspire to.

We need more Ron Pauls because his embrace of libertarian principles makes it possible for the Republican Party to once again become a party of debate and ideas. Ron Paul has repeatedly spoken loudly if only through the votes that he has cast while in Congress.

Ron Paul and similar minds are the last great hope for the Republican Party because we desperately need an ethos of open minds, forceful disagreement, and principled discussions. Just 25 such Republicans would make all the difference between now and the great fracturing of a balkanized Republican Party in the 2010 and 2012 elections.

And to my “moderate” friends

And for moderates — you need to find some principles quick. Being “moderate” or “centrist” is a mode. If you keep standing in the middle of the road whining that no one is stopping to give you a kiss … then you are just going to get your arse run over. Become a liberal, libertarian or conservative or whatever, but get some principles and go with it. Defend them. Live them. Be “moderate” when it comes to time to work out agreement but please stop standing in the middle of the road.

Best regards,
Bill4DogCatcher.com

I am researching the probability that American conservatives will abandon the Republican Party and form a third party to run in 2012.

Also interested in whether Democratic Blue Dogs and other currently existing third parties, such as the Constitution Party, will join or collaborate with a new party comprised primarily of an exodus from the Republican Party.

Will publish a series of essays to appear on a variety of political websites beginning November 2nd, 2009.

Below are the progression of my survey topics:

• Conservative Future 1/5 – Political Divorce and Third Party in 2012?
• Conservative Future 2/5 – Conservative Third Parties in USA
• Conservative Future 3/5 – Giants and Personalities Capable of Uniting Conservatopia
• Conservative Future 4/5 – Can Conservatives and the Right Wing Play Nice Together?
• Conservative Future 5/5 – Conservatives and the GOP – Divorce or Collaboration: 2012?

Am seeking various sources of information with hard information on personalities, issues, point/counterpoint, prior research, polls, conspiracy theories and rumor plus your opinion.

You are welcome to send me your thoughts — and sources — via Facebook or via email: WGolden@IntelligenceCareers.com

It’s not pretty.

Many conservatives and conservative elements of the Republican Party have been a voice of anger since the 2008 election loss to Obama and the Democrats.

Yet something has changed just over the last month (September 2009) in the tone of some conservative and Republican leaders.

Republicans across the spectrum are not yet holding hands. Some conservatives, whether or not they claim to back any political party, seem to be pausing for reflection.

There is some sense emerging among conservatives that they need a different path. Conservatives are a very independent bunch that can fall into many different belief categories, nonetheless there is a new tone present that is beginning to appear across the spectrum of conservative shareholders.

Only hints are emerging at this point as to why the change in tone. However, I would attribute this new attitude to four factors.

• September’s TEA Party – while the TEA Parties were certainly successful in providing a platform for many different views to emerge, the rally in Washington DC was both anti-climatic and troubling for a good number of TEA Party supporters. The MensDailyNews ran an article entitled “Tea Party March Hijacked at the Podium” (3) and noted the September 13th event in Washington DC as “An epic political event; of, by, but as it turned out not so much for The People.” Republican speakers came in for blistering critique for trying to turn the event into a 2010 get-out-the-vote commercial.
• Townhall Backlash – President Obama and the Democrats, as well as many Republicans, took immense grief from the public over the summer wanting to know where they stood on various issues. Yet by summer’s end President Obama’s popularity was actually rising with a key group of Americans: Caucasian voters earning more than $75,000/year. While townhall speakers looked to survive the summer, Democratic and liberal strategists saw the potential for a backlash (4) against an audience that many Americans would come to view as angry conservatives, and largely angry Republicans. By summer’s end support for President Obama and his brand of health care had stabilized and support rose enough to keep both him and health care above the 50% support mark in the polls.
• Resurgence of Centrist and Moderate Republicans – A significant number of conservatives throughout the spring and summer of 2009 called for purging of non-conservative Republicans from the party. By September talk of purges changed as some conservatives were now calling to “… take the necessary steps to expel from their midst the rabble that believe in nutty conspiracies” and to “… cast off those intellectual dead weights who stir up irrational fear.” Centrists and moderate Republicans had meanwhile become energized, with a fair number of new blogs appearing and candidates such as Florida’s Crist and Texas’ Kay Bailey Hutchison stepping into the fray, and John McCain quietly building a 2010 roster of Republican candidates to run in 2010 races across the USA.
• Obama’s Popularity Rising – perhaps the biggest challenge for conservatives is that President Obama seems to have withstood just about every political name and smear imaginable and yet his own personal popularity is back on the rise. Independents, so important to both major political parties, gave a huge boost of support to Obama in early October with Obama’s job approval rising 9 points and the percentage of independents who said they disapproved dropping 16 points. Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s favorable numbers went up 7 points since August 2009 (6).

Conservative Tone Change

W. James Antle III, an associate editor of The American Spectator, writing in the upcoming November edition of The American Conservative (1) notes:

“The country desperately needs a conservatism that is more intellectually sober and a Republican Party that engages with the country’s most pressing problems rather than reliving its Reagan-era glories.” Antle deems Bush and McCain Republicans as Reform Republicans and warns strongly that these reformists “are the very last pundits Republicans should heed.” No marshmellows and kumbayaa songs around this campfire yet, but there is an important action call there to rethink conservative tactics.

Another view from an outspoken conservative, Reihan Salam, New America Foundation (2):

“Right now, the GOP needs to show that it stands for something specific – it needs a new “contract” that specifically spells out what it is for rather than what it is against (e.g. any change). From some, you’d think that the only thing that will save the country from its dissolution will be the utter failure of the president’s every decision. That may be good enough for 25% of the country but I don’t see how that’s a path that will gain support from a solid majority of Americans.”

Louisiana’s rising conservative star and governor Bobby Jindal wrote in an Op-Ed piece in this week’s Washington Post (7):

“Republicans have to join the battle of ideas…. Republicans must shift gears. Conservatives should seize the mantle of reform and lead. Conservatives either genuinely believe that conservative principles will work to solve real-world problems such as health care or they don’t.”

Best regards,
Bill4DogCatcher.com

Sources:
1 – W. James Antle III, Deformed Conservatism, The American Conservative, November 2009 edition: http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/nov/01/00018/

2 – Reihan Salam, Surviving Obama. A free-wheeling conversation about the Republican future, Washington Post, October 7, 2009: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/10/05/DI2009100502509.html

3 – Roger F. Gay, Tea Party March Hijacked at the Podium, MensNewsDaily.com: http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/13/tea-party-march-hijacked-at-the-podium/

4 – Rachel Weiner, Dems See Backlash In Town Hall Protests, The Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/05/dems-see-backlash-in-town_n_252181.html

5 – Beth Fouhy, Obama’s Job Approval Rises in AP Poll, AP, October 7, 2009:
http://news.aol.com/article/president-barack-obamas-job-approval/581625

6 – Rasmussen Poll, 57% View Pelosi Unfavorably, But That’s An Improvement, http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_favorability_ratings

7 – Bobby Jindal, The Conservative Case for Reform, Monday, October 5, 2009, Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/04/AR2009100402003.html

Congressman Alan Grayson (D-FL) recently went to floor of the House of Representatives and shared his frustrations that the Republicans were taking potshots at President Obama and the different emerging health care plans that are being worked on, without actually offering any real plan of their own.

Grayson called the Republican health care plans for America a blank sheet of paper.

Grayson summed up the Republican plan, as compared to the Democratic plans which you can read:

• Don’t get sick.
• And if you do get sick … die quickly.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Admittedly the Republicans really do NOT have a plan, and probably could not agree on a plan endorsed by a majority of Republican legislators even if they were to convene an intraparty summit.

The challenge for Republicans is that many do not see the need to discuss any kind of mandated national health care plan.

There are many reasons as to why Republicans reject a national fix to health care: states rights, personal responsibility, national debt, unmanageable bureaucracy, costs almost always exceed expectations, creation of a “right” not in the constitution, failure to address tort reform (which they never could bring themselves to do, either) and others.

Republicans are not without ideas (see Republican Health Care Proposals – healthcare.gop.gov). Republicans do care. A great many just do not believe that another federal bureaucracy is the answer.

So Congressman Grayson, you are correct to believe that the Republicans are dragging their feet and being purposely uncooperative. And you have both the right and the responsibility to shepherd through whatever legislation you believe is appropriate on whatever issue you believe needs attention. But do not assume that you have a clue as to why your political opposition is not holding your hand and singing Kumbaya on health care.

BTW - what we really need is health care reform. There are an incredible number of issues which would benefit Americans and attract bipartisan support. The bungled approach that produced the bloated health care proposal coming out of Washington is just not what America needs. Yet, instead of turning this into a win-win situation, all sides have become bitterly partisan. Since your party has the majority then you have a special responsibility to be adults on this issue.

Furthermore, I don’t want an apology from you — civility will do. And I’ll encourage my side to also take the path of civility as well. That’s a lot to wish for at this point. Luckily I believe in miracles.

A recent Gallup Poll shows that Republicans made some significant gains in brand identity over the summer (1). Republican-friendly voters have risen 3%.

Per Gallup, 42% of Americans now identify themselves, or lean, towards being Republican. Republicans started 2009 off with just 39%. Read more »