Okay, not that Ricky Bobby.

I’m talkin’ Rick Santorum and Bobby Jindal.

What’s that you say? Santorum hasn’t gotten the nomination yet and Jindal hasn’t been tapped or accepted a veep nod?

No matter!

This is purely speculative and while a bit tongue-in-cheek, perhaps not a bad idea.

If Mr. Santorum is able to garner the Republican nomination for President, Mr. Jindal would be a pretty good pick for Vice President I believe.

And, while some might see a campaign trying to piggyback or correlate in some way to the fictional character of Ricky Bobby as not a good choice or possible, perhaps it might be doable and interesting*. I think the character appeals to a lot of the electorate. It’d be interesting to see, that’s for sure.

So, consider this some campaign advice from a know-nothing-nobody for Team Santorum!

Ricky Bobby 2012! **

Feel free to tell me why this would or wouldn’t work and/or whether it’s a good idea.

*I have no idea about trademarks and intellectual properties vis-a-vis political campaigns, much less how Will Ferrell might feel, but considering how often politicians use popular music in their campaigns, why not a popular movie character that oozes “everyman”?!

**I “stole” the idea off of a comment from someone named “Doughboy” on Hot Air after I had offered the idea of Mr. Santorum teaming up with Mr. Jindal.

This post was originally posted at my blog, Wading Across

If you hadn’t heard the news, “T-Paw”, Mr. Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota who had campaigned for the chance to become the Republican Presidential contender bowed out today after a somewhat lackluster performance at the Iowa Ames Straw Poll.

Some of you don’t know a thing I’m talking about, and for the most part, that’s okay.  To be honest, I really haven’t been following the whole GOP pre-primary race either myself.

However, the events of this past weekend will likely have a major impact on what the Republican primary and nominating process/results look like and even what the presidential race in 2012 will look like and thus, who will win.

Three things happened this past weekend for the GOP.  The Ames, Iowa Straw Poll was held, Tim Pawlenty withdrew from the race and Rick Perry, current governor of Texas officially threw his hat into the ring.

Rank-wise, out of ten contestants, Mr. Pawlenty didn’t do horribly.  He came in third.  However, the numbers tell a different story.  More importantly, when you put this in light of the fact that T-Paw was pretty much the first Republican to throw his hat in the ring for the presidential race, long before anyone else, he should have had a stronger showing.

1. Michele Bachmann 4,823 votes
2. Ron Paul 4,671
3. Tim Pawlenty 2,293
4. Rick Perry 1,718 write-in votes
5. Rick Santorum 1,657
6. Herman Cain 1,465
7. Mitt Romney 567
8. Newt Gingrich 385
9. Jon Huntsman 69
10. Thad McCotter 35

Another result spread (via Wikipedia, linked elsewhere on this posting) puts it thusly:

This isn’t a hare and turtle story.  It’s not even a gun-jumping story for having unofficially running long before he officially threw his hat in the ring two years ago!  It pretty much boils down to the point that while he’s apparently a nice guy with some good things on his resume’, he still didn’t impress.  A good resume’ is important (unless you’re Barack Obama), but so is impressing the crowds and looking like a candidate that not only wants to win, but can win.

Mr. Pawlenty was bested at the Straw Poll by two candidates that are quite different from him.  Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul.  Mrs. Bachmann is effectively the Tea Party favorite in the race as well as running as a strong social conservative.  Mr. Paul is a libertarian and is warmly received by that faction.  Both are seen as non-establishment Republicans.  Both appeal to “wings” of the Republican base and party.

After two years of campaigning, Mr. Pawlenty failed to garner heavy financial support, failed to garner consistent numbers in various polls, and on and on it goes.  He was frankly the milque-toast candidate.  And so no doubt, this past Saturday afternoon, he and his staff saw the writing on the wall and did the sensible thing.

Apparently the Ames Poll rarely gets the eventual winner right, but that’s not the point of the Poll.  It’s about getting your name out there, about testing organizational skills, about proving and getting financial support.  For two years, Mr. Pawlenty had basically spun his wheels.  That’s got to be very demoralizing, especially as he saw more people enter the fray and yet find himself getting pushed to the pack of the pack in the surveys and national polls.

Contrast that with Rick Perry who had thrown his hat officially into the ring on the same day as the Ames Poll and garnered votes at the Poll purely as a write-in candidate.  Mr. Perry came in 4th.  4th out of ten candidates as a write-in, not having done any campaigning in Iowa prior to Ames, and having only officially announced the morning of the polling!

That says a lot about the current field and how it will no doubt shape up in the primaries and eventual nomination convention next year.

So, I’m going to make some speculations on what we’ll see going into the primaries and coming out of the primaries for 2012 and what that could mean in the election against Mr. Obama.

In 2008, as the primaries whittled down the pack, the GOP was left with three primary contenders, Romney, Huckabee and McCain.  The former two eventually bowed out as the latter eventually walked into the RNC convention with the nomination sewn up.  And, since McCain lost, many insiders and pundits saw the 2012 race as Mitt Romney’s “turn”, just as McCain had been George Bush’s last primary contender in 2000 going to the nomination.

Yet, Mitt Romney didn’t fare well at the Ames, there is another Mormon candidate in the pack (Huntsman) and he’s up against Michele Bachmann (who has shown herself to be a campaigning powerhouse) and now Rick Perry as well as the “spectre” of Sarah Palin hanging outside still playing with the media and crowds as to whether she’ll throw her hat in the ring.

Bet your bottom dollar, Mrs. Palin throwing her hat in the ring could be a game changer.  In the short-term it will definitely shake up the field of contenders.

The primaries don’t go down the line for a single candidate.  The results are dictated by the make-up of the constituents of each state who holds a primary, caucus or what-have-you.  So, in 2008 it wasn’t surprising that Mike Huckabee did so well in the south as he was a social conservative and Southerner.

But back to 2012.  Often, within the first couple of primaries, you begin to see candidates dropping like flies.  Sometimes all it takes is a single primary, and like Pawlenty with Ames, a candidate can figure out how much of the rest of the primaries are going to go for or against him/her.

Rick Santorum apparently said he’d drop out of the race if he didn’t place in the top 5 at Ames.  Mr. Santorum squeaked by in 5th place.  I fully expect that Mr. Santorum’s campaign will not last past the first couple of primaries.

I think the same can be said for Herman Cain’s campaign.  He seems likeable and no doubt he’s got great business acumen – which this country needs.  It’s great to see him in the race, but I recall hearing of staffing/organizational problems before.  Compound that with heavy hitters like Bachmann, Romney and Perry, and I just don’t see him gaining traction.

I also don’t see Ron Paul lasting until the end of the primary season.  Oh, he’ll probably stick it out for a while like he did in 2008 and he’ll probably even win a couple of states, but he is just “too” fringe.  Even if I agree with some of his positions and understand others, on the whole, he’s seen as a fluke and a flake.  His strong showing in many ways is not surprising.  He continually does well in many polls because he speaks to people’s gut reactions, but voters are often pragmatists in the end.

The principled voters would stick with Bachmann, Paul and maybe a couple of others, but the pragmatists who want to win more than anything, will put Michele and Ron to the curb.

Yes, you read that correctly, I don’t see Michele Bachmann standing on that stage next fall at the RNC convention as the nominee.  She, like Mr. Paul is a fringe element.  This isn’t to say that I don’t like her or agree with much of what she stands for.  In many ways, I believe she’s the best candidate view/platform-wise of the whole pack.  She has the drive, she has the organizational skill and she has strong support.  But sadly, principles don’t win elections, pragmatism does, because voters come in every ideological shade and many of them are in that muddling middle.  Independents and moderates.  Michele Bachmann will not appeal to them.

Let’s look at the past two Ames Poll results and see if they portend anything.

In 1999/2000, George Bush took the grand sweep.  He won the Ames and then Iowa’s Caucus.  He went on to win enough primaries to garner to nomination and eventually the presidency.  In the history of the Ames Poll, he is the only candidate to do so.  I think this might be a “fluke”.  It wouldn’t be applicable anyhow since the dynamics of the nation, economy and race have changed since 2000.

In 2007, Mitt Romney won the Ames while John McCain came in 10th – out of 11.  McCain went on to win the most primaries, thus the nomination, though losing the election.  Right behind Romney in rank was Mike Huckabee.

Similar to Barack Obama, John McCain came out of nowhere with a limping, troubled campaign to win the nomination.  Why?

While that question is really for another topic and post, in short, I believe it boils down to the fact that Mr. McCain was the establishment candidate – and the Tea Party did not yet exist.  Furthermore, while the economy was tanking and the Republicans had taken a drubbing in 2006, most Republicans were just not going to get in line behind an unknown turncoat from a “foreign” religion (Romney) nor another southerner (Huckabee) who not only was a strong social conservative but wore his Christian faith on his sleeve (that’s a media/secular sin).  Giuliani was just too left socially for the Republicans, Fred Thompson – who I liked – didn’t have the fire, and the rest of the pack were frankly either too far right for the pragmatists or just unknowns who were never going to gain financial traction.

Barack Obama won his nomination and the election for the precise opposite reasons that John McCain won his nomination yet lost the election.  Barack Obama was the anti-establishment candidate, he was the complete anti-Bush and he managed to convince enough people that he wasn’t too far left while every Democrat would tap their nose and wink… though many are now wishing they’d gone their own establishment route with Hillary Clinton.  But, I digress.

Back to the current pack of Republican contenders.  Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are the establishment candidates.  Specifically, of the group, Newt is the most establishment of them all, and as it stands in comparison to 2007, Mr. Gingrich’s standing looks very similar to Mr. McCain’s.

The question is, considering Mr. Gingrich’s own campaign/staffing meltdown similar to McCain’s, will he be a McCain redux?  While anything is possible, I doubt it, if only because of the Tea Party movement which has made many Republicans wary of old Republican warhorses, of which Newt is most certainly, no matter how much he tries to rebrand himself.

Similar to McCain, Jon Huntsman is at the bottom of the stack, and while he’s been around the political arena for a while, he’s an unknown, he’s “another Mormon” (not to denigrate his religion, but Mitt was the ground-breaker, so Jon just looks like he’s jumping on the bandwagon of Mitt’s trailblazing) and he formerly worked for Obama’s administration.  That last part I believe isn’t going to sit well with many voters.  He’s also frankly, an unknown, something John McCain was not.

Mitt Romney did far worse this go-round at the Ames than his earlier time, but the difference now is that he’s sitting on a mountain of campaign funding, he has a strong support network no doubt carried over from 2008, and he’s now minor establishment.  He can appeal to the moderates and independents.  His record will appeal to them.  However, he’s got Rick Perry to contend against.  I believe it’s entirely possible that money and networking of supporters will not help Mr. Romney.

As it stands now, I would not at all be surprised to see Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney going down the final stretches next spring.

As it stands right now, I believe we could well see Rick Perry getting the Republican nomination.  While he officially entered the race this past Saturday, similar to Tim Pawlenty he’d been dipping his feet in the water for some time, even if he says he wasn’t.  He had made himself known on the national stage for a while, putting himself as a counter-Obama.  His resume’ is strong.  Where the nation is weak, Texas is strong.  He’s a southerner, and a Texan to boot.  Republicans are going to be getting just nostalgic enough that they’ll want Bush back, never mind that apparently Perry and Bush do not see eye to eye at all.  Never mind that Bush was part of the reason our economy got into the situation it did.  Furthermore, Mr. Perry is tapping into the newest version of a Christian Right political movement.  I believe The Response was evidence of this.  Apparently Sarah Palin and more importantly, Michele Bachmann have ties to some of the religious/denominational movements primarily behind the event in question.  Mr. Perry is trying to muscle into the ladies “territory” and I believe he could well do it successfully.  With this new support, network and money, he’ll be able to not only appeal to the moderates and independents, but the further right, which is territory now held by Michele and Sarah.  I do not think it was coincidental at all that Mr. Perry was involved in The Response, and then a week later, oh, The Ames Straw Poll… and oh, by the by, I’m throwing my hat into the ring.  Pure assumptions on my part, but doesn’t it look suspiciously calculating?

This leaves Mrs. Sarah Palin.  What about Mrs. Palin?  She’s the wild card in this whole deck.  If she enters the race, she could instantly change the line-up.  If she does enter the race, I suspect that she’d unseat Michele Bachmann.  Handily.  The primary reason Michele is in the position she’s now in is because Sarah is not running, I believe.  I believe that if Mrs. Palin were to enter the race, most of Bachmann’s support would instantly go to Sarah, as would potentially some of Perry and Romney’s.

That said, I don’t think she’ll get the nomination for the same reason I don’t see Michele getting the nomination.  Pragmatism over principle.  Centrism over the wings.

And that brings us to the election of 2012.

If Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul or Sarah Palin were to somehow win the nomination, I believe it’s entirely probable that Barack Obama could squeak out another win, even in the face of a horrible economy and very lackluster polling and support – even from his own party and far left base.  Why?  Pragmatism over principle.  The same reason that drove moderates and independents to Obama in 2008 would keep them with him in ’12, especially if there were Republican candidates running against him who are far more conservative than John McCain.

If Rick Perry or Mitt Romney wins the nomination, I believe it’s entirely probable that Barack Obama will lose.  Why?  As noted above, his support structure is crumbling.  Just as many pundits – myself included ( a complete nobody at that) – predicted when he won, he’s a Jimmy Carter redux.  For the same reasons Obama won because he was the anti-Bush riding on the wave of anti-Republican sentiment in 06 and 08, now the pendulum has swung fully back.  2010 was largely a referendum not only of the Tea Party movement, but also against the Democrats and Mr. Obama.  That wave could well continue into 2012 and is highly likely to do so.

For me, principles come before pragmatism, and frankly, Perry is a pragmatic candidate from what I see now.  I haven’t done my homework yet to figure who I like and who I’d support.  Suffice to say, it most certainly is NOT Barack Obama and I’ll be more than glad if/when Mr. Obama is retired from office.

And so there you have it; my analyses and predictions  – for whatever half-pence they’re worth – as they now stand.

Update: Considering Erick Erickson’s article concerning the campaign team for/behind Mr. Perry, I believe my analysis is even stronger looking at 2012.

This article is cross-posted at Wading Across .

With the results of this Tuesday’s election, some are crying foul.  Several “Tea Party” candidates lost and one or more individuals (specifically from within the Tea Party) are blaming <a class=”zem_slink” title=”Third party (United States)” rel=”wikipedia” href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_%28United_States%29″>third party</a> candidates for their Tea Party backed candidate’s loss.  Certainly, their grievance has some sound reasoning, but much of it, in my opinion, is angry spin rooted in wounded pride.  In this posting, I will look at several key races, such as Florida, Delaware, Nevada, Colorado, Alaska and most importantly, the Missouri Congressional race for its 3rd district.  I will attempt to separate legitimate complaints from irrelevant ones and hopefully give a balanced view of the races as a whole.

As has been previously mentioned by myself and all over the internet, there has been a groundswell of real grassroots fiscal conservatism over the last two years that has largely coalesced into the <a class=”zem_slink” title=”Tea Party movement” rel=”wikipedia” href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement”>Tea Party movement</a> and organizations.  Within a year of starting up, these organizations had solidified and organized to a point that they could offer a strong, centralized voice with enough presence to attract and motivate politicians and candidates of all stripes and parties – one way or the other.  Quite a number of candidates across the nation this past cycle then were heavily backed, supported and promoted by Tea Parties.  This election was in part seen as a coming out event for the Tea Party and all eyes would be watching the outcomes to gauge the Tea Party’s real power now, for 2012 and beyond.

By and large, the “Tea Party”, though having a large contingent of self-professing moderate/independent types is mostly made up of conservatives who typically vote Republican.  Furthermore, most Tea Partiers – as well as most people nationally – tend to agree with the A/B political paradigm that only thru either the Democrats or Republicans can anything be accomplished or won.  Therefore, most Tea Party’s backed Republican candidates… and some of them lost (some to actual or perceived third party candidates).  The real question then is whether this says something about the Tea Parties, third parties, the candidates or the voting population of a given electorate in general.  The answer, I believe, is all of the above.

One of my underlying complaints about politics and Christians has been a proclivity towards pragmatism to the detriment of principles.  I am not saying that pragmatism cannot or doesn’t have a role, but I feel and suspect that most people, especially those who state they’re Christians, are putting this nation and politics before God, shelving principles in favor of what is admittedly a “game” (yes, it’s important, but there are priorities, and we’re to be ‘in the world, not of it’).  To that end, the discussion on principles has divided people, some doggedly voting only third parties, others only a primary party and still others such as myself, “cafeteria style”, voting for candidates, not parties.

A local radio pundit and blogger who’s big in the local and national Tea Party scene and now TV has implied (at least it’s what I infer from her statements) that perhaps third parties shouldn’t even be on general election ballots and that they spoil elections.  Furthermore, she made an argument that essentially people who support third parties and principles over pragmatism were being disingenuous vis-à-vis the principles of those who support primary party candidates.  That is to say, she asked if we (I) believed our principles were right, then were hers wrong?  What she has failed to see however in her rant on third parties is that she is effectively stating that her principles and belief in how politics should be done (the game) are correct, not ours (those who espouse principle over pragmatism and favor in part or fully, third parties).  Are we who do not hold to the A/B paradigm right or is she right?  Can we both be right?  Is this relativism?!    Perhaps the real answer is that there is no true absolute to politics except adherence to principles, and principles can vary person to person.  That said, if you’re a Christian, there are bedrock doctrines which are absolute.  Politics on the other hand has a lot open for discussion.  Politics is/should be “secular”.   Third Parties are only asking that the playing field be open and allow for honest discussion and play.  I hope I am relating this understandably and correctly.

<a class=”zem_slink” title=”Marco Rubio” rel=”wikipedia” href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Rubio”>Marco Rubio</a>, <a class=”zem_slink” title=”Charlie Crist” rel=”homepage” href=”http://www.flgov.com/”>Charlie Crist</a>, Christine O’Donnell, <a class=”zem_slink” title=”Ed Martin (Missouri politician)” rel=”homepage” href=”http://www.edmartinforcongress.com/”>Ed Martin</a>, Nick Ivanovich, Steven Hedrick, <a class=”zem_slink” title=”Tom Tancredo” rel=”homepage” href=”http://www.tancredoforgovernor2010.org/”>Tom Tancredo</a>, <a class=”zem_slink” title=”Sharron Angle” rel=”homepage” href=”http://www.sharronangle.com”>Sharron Angle</a>, <a class=”zem_slink” title=”Joe Miller (political candidate)” rel=”wikipedia” href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Miller_%28political_candidate%29″>Joe Miller</a>, <a class=”zem_slink” title=”Lisa Murkowski” rel=”wikipedia” href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Murkowski”>Lisa Murkowski</a>.  Republicans, third party candidates and Tea Party backed candidates this past election.  Some won, some lost and some are still in the air.  Who spoiled the game?

Marco Rubio, Christine O’Donnell, Ed Martin, Tom Tancredo, Sharron Angle and Joe Miller were all backed by Tea Parties.  But wait, Tom <a href=”http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/25/tancredo-gets-big-tea-party-endorsement/”>Tancredo</a> was also a third party candidate, the rest were running as Republicans.  Nick Ivanovich, Steven Hedrick, Charlie Crist and Lisa Murkowski ran as third party candidates.  Of the group, the two who truly might be considered spoilers are Charlie Crist and Lisa Murkowski.  Both were Republicans who lost in the primary and decided to run as an independent and a write-in respectively because frankly, they were sore losers.  Illegal?  No.  Immoral and unethical?  Perhaps, but mostly just really poor taste and a whole lot of arrogant pride.  I believe there is a sharp difference between Crist and Murkowski on one hand and Tancredo, Ivanovich and Hedrick on the other.

Marco Rubio won in spite of Mr. Crist.  Mr. Crist did not spoil Mr. Rubio’s election, though he certainly tried.  If anything, if we’re talking “spoiling”, Mr. Crist did more to Mr. Meeks (the Democrat) campaign because Mr. Crist’s true, liberal self came out in the election.  Had he won the primary, he (Crist) could well have sailed to victory; but, Floridians stuck with Mr. Rubio.

Christine O’Donnell won her primary against the normally accepted Republican, Mike Castle.  Delaware Republicans put principle before pragmatism.  She lost the race against Chris Coons (D) who was far more liberal than Mr. Castle.  Did Mrs. O’Donnell spoil the race for Mr. Castle who would probably have sailed to victory over Mr. Coons?  At least Mr. Castle had the dignity and respect not to become a third party candidate.  Mrs. Angle in Nevada had a similar story.  Were conservative, Republican Nevadans to blame for choosing Mrs. Angle  in the primary, thus losing against Harry Reid?

Lisa Murkowski and Joe Miller’s race is being contested by Mr. Miller’s campaign.  Did Mrs. Murkowski spoil Mr. Miller’s race?  Of the group discussed, I believe she and Mr. Crist were/are true spoilers, however, that said, the results of the Alaskan and Floridian election tell a story.  Mr. Crist lost.  Mrs. Murkowski will most probably win.  The real issue then is not whether Mrs. Murkowski should be in the race, but whether or not a majority of Alaskans truly want Joe Miller to represent them.  Just as in Delaware and Nevada, they must not if Mrs. Murkowski is getting more write-in votes than Mr. Miller received on the ballot.

Mr. Tancredo ran for governor of Colorado as a third party candidate and lost.  Some have seen him as a spoiler to Republican Dan Maes campaign, yet, Mr. Tancredo was a legitimate candidate who saw rising popularity as election time neared while Mr. Maes plummeted in the polls.  While Mr. Tancredo had been a Republican, he entered the gubernatorial race as a third party candidate.  Furthermore, though losing, he garnered a substantial percentage of the vote.  One might say that perhaps Mr. Maes was the real spoiler, not Mr. Tancredo, since he got votes similar to a typical third party candidate.  Maybe that says more about the candidate and the voters, just as with Alaska and every other race.

Maybe some liberals, Democrats and moderate independents were putting pragmatism before principle too… maybe they were putting principle first.  “How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?!  The world may never know”.  Crist, Coons and Murkowski may well have gotten a lot of votes from Democrats and Independents that just didn’t want to see Rubio, O’Donnell or Miller win, and in the Florida and Alaskan race, the Democrat may have been seen as a dead political fish anyway.

Lastly, let’s look at the Missouri Congressional race for the 3rd district.  Mr. Russ Carnahan won by a squeaker against Mr. Ed Martin.  As of this writing, Mr. Martin has yet to concede, though Mr. Carnahan has a 2% advantage.  Furthermore, while Mr. Martin is claiming potential election/vote irregularities (hint: fraud), <a href=”http://thedanashow.wordpress.com/”>Dana Loesch</a> is blaming the third party candidates.  Are the third party candidates, Mr. Ivanovich and Mr. Hedrick really to blame, or is this just a case of sour grapes?  The local Tea Party made MO3 effectively a “pet project”.  It got to a point that it seems they believed the election was in the bag for them, more so that they were “entitled” to it.  I say this because Mrs. Loesch on air noted her anger about the election results, immediately blaming third party votes.  Most politicians are understandably upset about a political loss, but they are conciliatory.  It is a “game” after all.  Let’s look a bit closer at MO3 and see what the real story is.

Here are the results of the elections for the last ten years between Republicans and Democrats in MO3.  Let me point out that MO3 has been held by a Democrat for around sixty years and as is noted below, Mr. Dick Gephardt hailed from there and held the seat for over twenty years thru the loss of Carter to Reagan, the 1994 Republican sweep and George Bush’s 2000 victory.  The district is largely rural, blue collar and “Democrat”.

2000 – Dem: 147,000 Rep: 101,000 – 57.8 to 39.7, Gephardt
2002 – Dem: 121,750 Rep: 80,250 – 59 to 39,
2004 – Dem: 147,000 Rep: 125,400 – 52.9 to 45.1, Carnahan
2006p – Dem: 48,700 Rep: 11,900
2006 – Dem: 145,200 Rep: 70,200 – 65.6 to 31.7
2008p – Dem: 38,000 Rep: 19,000
2008 – Dem: 202,500 Rep: 92,750 – 66.4 to 30.4
2010p – Dem: 46,100 Rep: 35,100
2010 – Dem: 99,000 Rep: 94,600 – 48.9 to 46.7, Carnahan over Martin

The Tea Party did not start until the spring of 2009.  While Republican voter turnout for the district has steadily increased from a low in 2006, it shows no marked increase from 2008 to 2010.  If the Tea Party and Republicans were working so diligently in the district over the last year and a half, where are the votes to show for it?  If, as the Tea Party believed, they were making such strong inroads with agreement and support in MO3, then there should have been a sharp uptick in votes for Mr. Martin as compared to 2008.  Instead, Ed got barely two thousand more votes than the prior Republican candidate had received.  Furthermore, as 2004 shows, the district clearly can bring out more Republican votes.

That said, it’s probable that the Tea Party did have some positive affects on MO3 in that Mr. Carnahan’s votes were cut in half from 2008.  Granted, most of those voters in 2008 came out because of Mr. Obama’s campaign, but the Democrats can typically count on close to 150k votes.  Mr. Carnahan lost 50k votes.  Where did they go?  Most of those voters were no doubt turned off by Mr. Carnahan’s performance as well as the national performance of the Congressional Democrats and the President.  However, that did not translate into votes over to Mr. Martin.   So, now we’ll turn to the third parties in MO3 and see how they’ve fared over the last six years (Rounded/Approx.).   I am not including two write in candidates over two elections who garnered a total ~60 votes.

2004: 5,590 – Constitution: 1,220 Libertarian: 4370
2006: 6030 – Libertarian: 4,210 Progressive: 1,820
2008: 9,830 – Constitution: 4,320 Libertarian: 5,510
2010: 8,900 – Constitution: 3,150 Libertarian: 5,750

I think the election results speak quite clearly.  The third party candidates did not “spoil” MO3 for Mr. Martin.  Mr. Martin lost by 4,400 votes.  Had neither third party been allowed to run, while the Constitution Party voters would probably have voted for Mr. Martin, the Libertarian voters could have split their votes between Mr. Martin and Mr.  Carnahan since there are conservative and liberal libertarians.  At that point the race would have been a tie.   It’s interesting to note as well that while the combined turnout for Republicans and Democrats in MO3 over the last ten years has gone up and down, for the last six years third party candidates have increased their combined turnout consistently – not counting the obvious ’08 Obama bump (we will have to wait until 2012 and 2016 to see if 2008′s massive turnout was a one time fluke due to Mr. Obama being the first primary party black candidate to run in the general presidential election).

You can point to voter turn out by counties, but districts often cross a number of counties and rural to urban areas.  If you cannot get a plurality of the vote across the district, you will lose an election, and that means a candidate must focus most of their time in the areas more adverse to their platform, party and ideologies.  Clearly Mr. Martin’s biggest struggle was in South St. Louis City, Carnahan getting 66.6 (I kid you not!) to Martin’s 29.5.  In St. Louis County, Mr. Carnahan beat Mr. Martin 48.5 to 48.2.  Since most of the population of MO3 is in these two areas, that Mr. Martin won other areas is effectively irrelevant.

I believe I have made the point that third party candidates have not spoiled any of the races this past Tuesday.  Furthermore, as the race in MO3 as well as across the nation point out, the Tea Party and the conservative swell still has plenty of power.  I believe we’ll see further advances by the Tea Party in 2012, and just possibly, MO3 may turn “red” yet.

Take <a href=”http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/11/04/recriminations/”>this article</a> by Erick Erickson into consideration concerning internal party politics and its affects on elections as you mull my own posting.

Crossposted to <a href=”http://wadingacross.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/cry-me-a-river-third-party-spoilers/”>WadingAcross</a>

In this post, we’ll begin with a review of the turn out numbers for Missouri from yesterday’s election and compare that to several prior election cycles. We’ll focus on the Governor, State Secretary, and US MO1 & MO3 as well as make some postulations on the next US Senate race.

Nearly 1,937,000 votes were cast in the Senatorial race with Mr. Blunt winning over Mrs. Antolinez 54.3% to 40.6%. However, a review of the last ten years shows a severe drop in voter turnout statewide. Clearly the state as a whole was not motivated to go to the polls, and I suspect it was largely a lack of Democrat turnout. That said, Democrats and liberals turned out in the metro areas as normal.

Missouri has an estimated state population of 6 million people. (All numbers will be rounded or approximated) According to State records for 2010; 4,137,500 people are registered to vote.

2010 – 1,937,000 votes for Senator.
2008 – 2,925,000 votes for President.
2006 – 2,128,000 votes for Senator.
2004 – 2,731,000 votes for President.
2002 – 1,874,000 votes for Senator.
2000 – 2,360,000 votes for President.

It’s really too early to speculate with certainty how Governor Nixon will fare in a re-election bid for 2012, but if the nation continues to flounder economically, he or any Democrat could be swept out in a similar tide that brought them up in 2006 and 2008. I’ve heard/read one or two people thinking that Mrs. Carnahan-Antolinez might try and run against Nixon. Whether she runs against Nixon or tries to hold onto the SoS seat, I suspect that with the results of this past election, Missouri will “Show her” the door.

Unless House Republicans are able to carve out some of MO1 or MO5 – as a result of Census reapportionment – I believe both will remain solidly Democrat. The ONLY way Lacy Clay can be defeated is if the Republicans, a third party and/or Tea Party promote and put forth a solid candidate. A “big” name is needed; someone who is known, has a great resume’, strong message and can appeal to the primarily Democrat/ethnic mix of North St. Louis City and County. Frankly, the last two contenders for MO1 had zero chance, especially since the county, state and national Republicans have given little to no support for that seat. If the St. Louis Tea Party and Republican Committees cannot be bothered to strongly back a candidate, there is little reason for anyone to contest Mr. Clay unless he’s thoroughly fouled himself up. As for MO3, Russ Carnahan barely held on to his seat, and while the district is historically Democratic, Ed Martin and the St. Louis Tea Party had such a strong showing there, it’s entirely possible that with two more years they can tip the balance in favor of a Republican upset. The political paradigm for MO3 may well be on the cusp of shifting.

In 2012, Mrs. McCaskill will be running for re-election. If the conservative swell holds over from this year, she will probably lose. Historically the Missouri State Auditor’s seat has been a platform for higher office. Mrs. McCaskill was once the State Auditor and my speculation is that Mr. Schweich is positioned to run against her. Everything in Mr. Schweich’s resume’ says he’s a political climber, so you heard it here first, I think he’ll run against Claire. He has nothing to lose and “everything” to win.

How do I come to these conclusions? The turnout numbers. I reviewed them this past summer after the primaries. Let’s look at them again. These numbers will focus only on total Republican and Democrat votes received. I will cover third party turnouts in a subsequent posting. The numbers tell a story.

- President; Primaries and Elections:
2000p – Dem: 265,500 Rep: 475,000
2000 – Dem: 1,111,000 Rep: 1,190,000 – 50.4 to 47.1, Bush
2004p – Dem: 418,000 Rep: 123,000
2004 – Dem: 1,259,000 Rep: 1,456,000 – 53.3 to 46.1, Bush
2008p – Dem: 824,900 Rep: 588,700
2008 – Dem: 1,442,000 Rep: 1,445,900 – 49.4 to 49.3, McCain
- Governor; Primaries and Elections:
2000 – Dem: 1,153,000 Rep: 1,131,000 – 49.1 to 48.2, Holden
2004 – Dem: 1,301,000 Rep: 1,382,000 – 50.8 to 47.9, Blunt
2008p – Dem: 358,000 Rep: 396,000
2008 – Dem: 1,680,600 Rep: 1,136,400, – 58.4 to 39.5, Nixon
- US Senate; Primaries and Elections:
2000 – Dem: 1,192,000 Rep: 1,143,000 – 50.5 to 48.4, Carnahan over Ashcroft
2002 – Dem: 911,500 Rep: 934,000 – 49.8 to 48.6, Talent over Carnahan
2004 – Dem: 1,158,000 Rep: 1,518,000 – 56.1 to 42.8, Bond
2006 – Dem: 1,055,000 Rep: 1,007,000 – 49.6 to 47.3, McCaskill
2010p – Dem: 315,500 Rep: 577,500
2010 – Dem: 786,000 Rep: 1,051,500 – 54.3 to 40.6, Blunt
- Mo. Sec. State Elections:
2000 – Dem: 1,037,000 Rep: 1,180,000 – 51.4 to 45.1, Blunt
2004 – Dem: 1,368,000 Rep: 1,243,000 – 51.1 to 46.4, Carnahan
2008 – Dem: 1,744,000 Rep: 1,004,000 – 61.8 to 35.6
- US Rep. Dist 1; Primaries and Elections:
2000 – Dem: 149,000 Rep: 42,750 – 75.2 to 21.5, Clay
2002 – Dem: 133,000 Rep: 51,500 – 70 to 27.2
2004 – Dem: 213,500 Rep: 65,000 – 75.3 to 22.8
2006p – Dem: 33,000 Rep: 9,250
2006 – Dem: 141,500 Rep: 48,000 – 72.9 to 24.7
2008 – Dem: 242,500 Rep: 0
2010p – Dem: 45,250 Rep: 16,200
2010 – Dem: 134,300 Rep: 43,250 – 73.5 to 23.7
- US Rep. Dist 3; Primaries and Elections:
2000 – Dem: 147,000 Rep: 101,000 – 57.8 to 39.7, Gephardt
2002 – Dem: 121,750 Rep: 80,250 – 59 to 39,
2004 – Dem: 147,000 Rep: 125,400 – 52.9 to 45.1, Carnahan
2006p – Dem: 48,700 Rep: 11,900
2006 – Dem: 145,200 Rep: 70,200 – 65.6 to 31.7
2008p – Dem: 38,000 Rep: 19,000
2008 – Dem: 202,500 Rep: 92,750 – 66.4 to 30.4
2010p – Dem: 46,100 Rep: 35,100
2010 – Dem: 99,000 Rep: 94,600 – 48.9 to 46.7, Carnahan over Martin

A take away that jumped out at me when tallying the numbers. In 2008 in the midst of tremendous Democrat/liberal/black voter turnout across the nation and in Missouri, more Democrats voted for governor than they did for president. John McCain took Missouri in 2008 and I believe Republicans will take it again in 2012.

The final take away and the biggest “upset” was Russ Carnahan keeping his seat. With as much as the Tea Party pushed in MO3, and though voter turnout for Republicans has steadily increased over the last six years, there was no marked increase from 2008 to 2010. While Democrats precipitously didn’t vote for Russ, they didn’t switch to Ed or any third party candidate (combined third party candidates in MO3 got 9k), and in the end it just wasn’t enough for Mr. Martin to get the numbers needed. Furthermore, MO3 certainly does have the ability to get over 100k Republican votes as 2004 attests. With all that the Tea Party did in MO3, and all that Mr. Carnahan has supposedly not done, perhaps this says something about the St. Louis Tea Party and Mr. Martin? One story was that there was too much coverage of the coming Republican tidal wave in the weeks leading up to the election, allowing the Democrats to come out and vote in fear. However, the voter turnout for Democrats in St. Louis over the last decade do not show any substantive – if any – uptick to support that here in Missouri.

You can look up this information here, here or here.

Crossposted at Wading Across

This has the potential to not go well.

The headline is “Woman’s head stepped on by Rand Paul supporters”.

I can bet that liberals and anti-Paul, anti-Tea Party types will take that line and run with it. It’s laden with assumptions and stereotype.

Thoughts about Kenneth Gladney’s beating by SEIU thugs at a Russ Carnahan townhall last year come to mind, but clearly there is a difference between this situation and that one.

Mr. Gladney was minding his own business, whereas this woman was wearing a disguise and while she probably meant no physical harm, her intent was to get next to Mr. Paul and hand him an “award”. Supporters wrestled her to the ground.

The problem in all of this is that someone overzealously put their foot on her head. Bzzt. Wrong move bozo.

I have seen insults and slurs written online by self-avowed conservatives against fellow conservatives, liberals and Democrats/the administration; but, on the whole conservatives and Tea Party individuals have made a concerted effort to be collected and more importantly, peaceful, when in public at events.

I could see trying to remove the woman from the scene. I can see trying to keep Mr. Paul safe, especially when you don’t know exactly what this person is intending. I can see putting her to the ground if she’s putting up a fight/struggle. But you don’t put your foot on a person’s head. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

I don’t think this incident will truly affect votes for Mr. Paul, but I would not be surprised to hear of Mr. Conway’s team trying to use it as a last-minute October Surprise.

This will rile up the liberal base and be used as “proof” against Paulians, Tea Partiers and conservatives, but in the end it’s not much of anything, though to be sure it’s not good. The individual who placed their foot down acted without thinking.

Mr. Paul’s campaign has released a statement on the incident.

Crossposted at Wading Across

Do we truly mean something when we say it? Do we believe in honor, in our yes being yes and our no being no?

It’s one thing to give a caveat or when you make a proclaimation or statement; it’s something more weighty when you say, “I will…”

To be sure, no one is perfect, and daily we all say things we either don’t follow thru with or were lying about. “Yeah, I’ll take out the trash right now.” “Yes, I will give blood”, etc. Certainly a lie is a lie, a sin is a sin.

However, when you get public, when you’re a politician, you’re automatically going to be (should be) held to a high bar (character does count – and should foremostly before ideology). When you say you’re going to do something, if you do not, you’d better have a very good reason why you were not able or did not follow thru with your promise(s).

Politicians have a habit of making red meat statements. Sometimes it’s really a game of chicken, calling someone’s bluff in an effort to show people that you’re serious. The problem is that sometimes the bluffer dodges, and then dodges some more as they make excuses for why they flinched. People don’t always weigh the risks, thinking ahead and not only asking “What if”, but “Will I, if”.

Yesterday I wrote a piece about third parties and the idea that we’ve been force-fed for so long that you only have an A or B choice. Rush Limbaugh made comments about the current/future direction of the Republican Party somewhat along a similar line (though I suspect he’s still a believer in the A, B system). Today Jim DeMint comes out and stated that if the Republican leadership does not hold true in correcting course, he’d leave the party.

Now, some are saying this is just a shot across the bow, a warning to the GOP that Mr. DeMint and others are quite serious about reforming and keeping the Republican Party back to its roots; that Mr. DeMint isn’t really serious about that third party thing.

Excuse me? Why would you say such a thing unless you meant it? If you do not mean what you say, then you’re being flippant and continuing the game of political compromise.

Mr. DeMint has made a name for himself as a staunch conservative voice in Congress, and a powerhouse for conservatives seeking office or trying to keep their seat. He has made a name for himself as a man with honor and integrity, one who speaks his mind and will live up to what he says.

The concern I have is what standard is Mr. DeMint going to base his judgement of the Republican leadership on?

You can be sure that there are going to be many constituents and pundits that will keep Mr. DeMint’s feet to the fire concering his warning/promise.

Mr. DeMint will probably not leave the GOP, but if the public perceives that the Republican Party and it’s Congressional leadership has slipped away to a noticeable degree from their pledges and promises and Mr. DeMint does not revoke his membership, he may find that many pundits and more importantly, constituents, might not be so willing to follow him if he decides to continue running for/holding public office.

Let your yes be yes Mr. DeMint, and don’t play games with your constituents thinking yourself politically coy. Continue to be the man of integrity that many of us see you are.

Crossposted at Wading Across

I am often ridiculed by fellow conservatives for bringing up even the idea of third parties. The continual response is basically that in concept they’re good, but in reality they’re not.

Sometimes theory doesn’t translate well into reality; case in point, Marxism/communism. A utopian ideal of pure equality and communalism is a wonderful idea, but since man is flawed, a cultural/political construct devoid of a supreme being and forced upon people will never work, period. It’s the same thing for people creating theocracies.

The fact is that there is not a single governmental/political system that will work perfectly or even completely well. The effort is to find the balance between freedom and equality, while continuing to uproot corruption. Corruption is part and parcel to the human condition because we are sinful people. Too much “equality” and you have no freedom; too much “freedom” and you have zero equality.

But back to the discussion at hand, the two party system that’s effectively become engrained into our political system pretty much since the nation’s founding; we are told that the only real choices you have are A or B and that voting for any C is a wasted vote. Balderdash.

Every election cycle, and especially running up to “big” ones people in both parties and the voters talk about reforming the parties. The underlying foundational idea of the current conservative trend and Tea Party movement is nothing new – that it has coalesced and gained a voice and momentum is new. Conservatives for the most part always want to push the Republican party a bit further right. Conversely liberals for the most part always want to push the Democrat party a bit further left. A larger percentage of the nation may describe themselves as moderates instead of conservative or liberal, but I suspect that if you ask them enough specific questions very few are true fence sitters. Since we’re told you can only vote A or B, left leaning moderates and “independants” tend to vote Democrat and vice versa.

So while every election cycle people talk about reforming the parties, kicking out the RINOs and DINOs, every cycle the same rebuttal/caveat is trotted out: If you vote for a third party candidate you create the potential of splitting the vote, potentially or automatically enabling the “other” party to win – and thus gain/keep “power”. And so, the reform minded people shuffle their feet and tow the party line because hey, “This election now is do or die for our future” (As it was in 1992, 1994, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2010 and most certainly pretty much every election cycle prior to when I started voting). The people with conviction are told that pragmatism is necessary, that the name of the game is winning and having power.

Political power is not the answer. Politics, legislation and regulations will never provide the answer and will never fully put the nation on a completely “good” track. The pendulum will continue to swing, cycles will continue to occur. Power corrupts. There will always be citizens who do not like what is going on with the course of the nation, and there will always be people within both parties who in reality should belong to the other party since they share most or all of the ‘opposite’ ideological values.

The answer deeper down is perspective and priorities. As a Christian I believe the root is Christ and placing Him first. We are called to be in the world, not of it. Instead, we often/mostly play the political game, and at the end of the day, whether people recognize it or not and admit it or not, we make a god of this nation and an idol of politics.

The town I grew up in is largely populated by blacks and it votes predominately Democrat. A good friend of mine had talked with a local politician and expressed a passing idea of getting in government. The politician – a Democrat – said he agreed with and/or liked a lot of what my friend had to say, and then said, ‘but you’d have to be a Democrat, otherwise you’d never win’. He told my friend, ‘I’d rather have you in politics as a Democrat than not because you chose to run as a Republican’. My friend declined because he was fully aware of the potential future ramifications. Yet how many politicians do precisely that? The party label is a means to an end to them; conviction, principles and standards don’t matter. At the end of the day it boils down to pride and power.

Every election cycle, those of us who’d naturally lean towards a third party are told to hold off until next year, to continue to push for reform next year, after the election is over, once the seats are assured for another period of time. Every year with rare exception, third parties get very little votes and every year the two big parties take on some of the third party platforms. Yet for the most part the parties don’t change, they just slide back and forth a little on the scale.

1994 was supposed to be a big turning point in the Republican party. Affected by Ross Perot in 1992 and the initial presidency of Clinton, the Republican party veered a little right and capitalized on public attitudes. Yet four to six years later the Republican party was largely indistinguishable from the Democrats and by 2006 this was plainly evident to the whole nation. Watch that pendulum swing baby.

A political party should be a reflection of people who espouse a specific set or range of views and platforms. You find this in the third parties. Instead, with the two primary parties, the party is dictating to the individual a broad range of views and platforms and telling the individual that A or B is where they fit. It’s backwards. Instead of the voters running the show, you have an “establishment” who runs the show.

We have become the football when instead we are supposed to be the coaches.

A year and a half ago when the Tea Party movement began in conjunction with the nascent conservative “revival” against Obama’s hard left blitz on America, I was pretty pleased with what I saw and pretty hopeful. However, as time has passed and the movement has solidified, I have found myself stepping back. I still agree with much of what the Tea Party and conservative swell believes and is preaching, but what I see is the placement of fiscal conservatism over social conservatism, potentially to the latter’s detriment.

This isn’t to say that I don’t care about the national debt, deficit and looming collapse. However, as a Christian, social issues will always trump fiscal issues. Life is more precious than a dollar or a business. In 1994 the Republicans were promoting fiscal issues and telling the social conservatives that they wouldn’t be forgotten. While it’s true that the Republican party is more socially conservative than the Democrat party, time and again compromise and political pragmatism lessened or shunted social conservative platforms and goals.

My fear is that the Republican party will effectively see the same thing again as in 1994. The new “establishment” becoming just like the “old”. And in the end, no real, lasting reform occuring because hey, gotta vote A or B. Gotta “win”.

Two years ago I heard a radio pundit belittle many callers who said that maybe defeat would be a good thing for the Republican party. His response was, “How can you have victory/win from defeat?!” He thought many of us had a defeatist attitude. It’s not a defeatist attitude, it’s a more realistic attitude with zero faith in the political system.

Obama won on “Hope and change” and two years later many of his voters are quite upset feeling/realizing they were taken for a ride and their vote. When you boil it down, the efforts of the Tea Party and conservative swell are hope and change too. To be honest, every election, every vote we cast is based in hope. We hope that our candidate will live up to their promises or at least make the effort with consistency.

Yet time and again we hold our nose when we vote for particular people. That right there says you have doubts about that person. We still pay some lip service and effort to it, but there was a time when character counted in a candidate. Instead we often get candidates to vote on who might line up on our political beliefs, but frankly are smarmy. So we get that person in office because he’s got the platform, but then proceeds to make a mockery of himself, the seat, his constituents, etc. And if he’s not run out or resigns, he does everything he can to keep his seat because he comes to believe that only he is able to do that job.

Politics has come down to name, party and money. Instead of character, ideology and work. Here in Missouri we were told by a local radio pundit – who is a Tea Party bigwig – that we should be voting (during the primary) for the most conservative candidate who had the best chances of winning. That’s pragmatism, and it’s focusing on the idea that winning is everything, and it’s based in fear. Delaware didn’t go that route while Missouri did (Roy Blunt winning the primary). Chuck Purgason was seen as probably the most conservative guy here and with a stand-up character, but he just wasn’t electable… you see he didn’t have the money or the big names backing him. Fear of a victory by Robin Carnahan drove people to Roy Blunt because he had the big names backing him, more name recognition and more money. And so Missouri is left with the prospect of “holding their nose” for A and B.

Christine O’Donnell won the primary because people decided that conviction mattered more than pragmatism. Mike Castle no doubt would seriously be ahead of Chris Coons right now in the polls because Delaware is “Castle” country. Delaware leans “RINO” (social liberal, fiscal conservative). Money flooded into Mrs. O’Donnell’s campaign when she won the primary. You don’t vote for a candidate because they look like they have the better chance of winning. You vote for a candidate and make them winnable. And if you lose, you say, “good fight, tomorrow I start again”.

Maybe what is really needed for both parties is for people to wake up and get sick of being the football. Maybe the only real way to effectively reform and purify each party is for them to lose, and lose, and lose again.

It’s pretty much a foregone conclusion that the Democrats are going to get trounced worse than 1994 and worse than Republicans were in 2006/08. I am glad for that prospect, but I hold no long-term hopes for the party. I suspect that they’ll eventually slink back leftward and that the changing of the gaurd won’t amount to much in the end.

The overall socio/cultural trend of this nation is sliding downward, as it has for well over a century. A shift in political parties or a reformation within each party is not going to change this trend. Politics is not the answer, the Republican Party and the Tea Party will not save this nation. Getting our nation financially stable and prosperous again is laudable, but without a strong, conservative social core, we will still, eventually go the way of the Roman Empire.

The two party system is flawed, and yet we are yearly told we should prop it up because it’s the only way. Perhaps the real answer is to let the Republican party flop and create a new party. Or, conversely to watch the Democrat party implode and see all of the moderates (RINOs and DINOs) coalesce. The two-party system in this nation has seen such things occur before, though it’s been over 150 years. Maybe it’s time for that again. Maybe it’s time for people to vote for the indivual, and not the party – and to not just pay lip service to that statement as many often do.

It will not be the end of the world or this nation if the Republican party does not regain control next month or in 2012. Fight for this country with conviction and principles, not pragmatism and compromise. Fear not. Too many people give in to pragmatism over conviction out of fear for the future. If our founders had been pragmatic, we would never have become a nation.

Rush Limbaugh apparently “expects” a return to business as usual from the Republicans after the elections. If he’s “getting” it, maybe, just maybe, I’m not so off my rocker in my analysis, eh?

Crossposted at Wading Across

Un-flippin’ believable. Every day it seems that Chicago/Illinois politics leave historic New York and Louisianian corrupt politics in the dust.

It used to be, with a wink and a nod, that Tammany Hall or the Louisianian Democrats post Reconstruction and their political progeny were it. But long gone are the days of Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall or Cousin Dud* and the Longs, Huey and Earl. Chicago’s politics stink to high heaven, and like a pig to the trough, Rahm’s home.

Today we discover that Mrs. Obama, did a little “electioneering” IN an election site in South Chicago. Oh, but it gets so much better. You see, the local election official as well as the paragon of White House Press Secretaries, Mr. Gibbs both laughed it off and excused it (Gibbs without even fully knowing the story). What insanity. What a perfect example of the elitism** that has been rightly leveled against the Obamas. What a perfect example of the pragmatism and downright relativism and corruption which riddles our government like so much swiss cheese. They do it in the open. There is no need for conspiracy theories; they don’t care! That said, if you read the link, Hotair’s Allahpundit notes that it’s debateable as to whether or not Mrs. Obama truly broke any law or not. Be that as it may…

To add icing to Mrs. Obama’s cake*** – or insult to injury depending upon what side of the Versaille window you’re looking thru – it’s come to light that ballots have not been sent overseas for our military from Illinois – some on time, many not, some not at all. More law-breaking covered with excuses. What a pleasant little coincidence that Illinois is about to heavily shift red and most military personnel are conservative, no? The lack of Illinois soldiers votes might not affect the big state races, but you can be sure it’ll affect plenty of local ones, especially in tight races. Emotionalism aside, it will remain to be seen whether or not what effects this will have. Never mind excuses, the law is the law. In Louisiana the old story was that you’d see ballot boxes floating down the bayou at the close of election day, yet election officials would announce the winner, with all votes accounted for… Now, it’s just a matter of not sending a ballot in the first place… or just changing some spellings.

Last but not least, here’s another story from Illinois you’ll love – Whitney becomes Whitey on a ballot in a predominately non-white district, and yes, Mr. Whitney is white. Just another “oops”. Maybe truly just another coincidence, but it does seem rather funny, all these coincidences piling up in Illinois.

As an aside, concerning electioneering: Here in Missouri the law states no electioneering within 25 feet of the election/voting site. Signs are clearly placed at the entrance and people electioneering are usually to be found in the parking lots. In Illinois it’s apparently 100 feet. I don’t know if there are any warning signs about electioneering. In Louisiana, if memory serves, it’s 600 feet. I like that. I never had anyone ever attempt to electioneer when I went to vote in Louisiana because the distance made it not worth the effort. Instead all you’d see were the yard signs, which is found in any state no matter the law or the distance.

* I happen to have a Hadacol glass among my personal collection.
** An ad hoc fallacy? Elitism is essentially snobbery, that someone “knows” more or better than you or the “lesser” crowd. Thus many politicians think they know better than their constituents, many rich feel the same about the poor, and the coastal urbanites feel about “fly-over” country.
*** Yes, I know that Marie never really said it.

Crossposted at Wading Across

This posting is applicable primarily to people living in/near my district, but certainly Missouri as a whole. I will note measures and offices as well as particular candidates of interest. Links will be available to allow you to do your own research – an educated voter is a smart voter – and though you’re free to ignore or disagree with some of my assessments and opinions, I’ll mention some of my own thoughts.
Republicans, conservatives and libertarians vote on November 2nd, all others vote on November 3rd. Just kidding, seriously. That said, I have a funny feeling quite a number of liberals and Democrats will not be voting en masse this November as they had two years ago. Wonder why?

There will be 5 measures on the ballot – if you’ve been listening to the radio, you’re probably aware of two or three of them already. Ballotpedia has it broken down and links give further information:

Amendment 1 Requires the assessors in charter counties (except Jackson County) to be elected
Amendment 2 Property Tax Exemption for Disabled Former Prisoners of War
Amendment 3 Prohibit taxes for the sale/transfer of homes or any other real estate
Proposition A Amendments to the cities currently using earnings taxes
Proposition B Adopt new rules for dog-breeders in the state

You can also look at Missouri’s Sec. State website.

The big voting ticket will be for a US Senator from Missouri to replace retiring Senator Kit Bond. A number of US Representatives are up for vote as well as numerous State Senators, Representatives, judges and State Auditor. Again, MO Sec. State has the complete breakdown, but I will highlight some of the seats and those running. You may also want to check your local county website for information pertaining to your specific town and/or locale. St. Louis County for example is voting on the County Executive, County Council seats and a number of towns and districts are voting on specific local seats, measures and issues.

For US Senate, the big names running are Republican Roy Blunt and Democrat Robin Carnahan, but let us not forget that there are two third party contenders, Jonathan Dine – Libertarian and Jerry Beck – Constitution.

For US Representative, the big race is MO 3, between Democrat Russ Carnahan and Republican Ed Martin. Yup, you read that right. Russ and Robin are siblings, a political dynasty the Carnahans are. That said, Roy Blunt is part of another political dynasty, the Blunt family. The MO 5 race is said to be a toss-up; Democrat incumbent Emanuel Cleaver Jr. is trying to keep his seat. MO 4 could be another seat that changes hands; Democrat Ike Skelton, originally thought solid has been looking vulnerable. Probably the most well known district, MO 1, held by Democrat Lacy Clay will probably stay the same.

The other big race is for State Auditor, and this is only because over the years it seems to have become a stepping stone for furthering political careers and office seeking. Current Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill was once State Auditor as was retired John Ashcroft. Susan Montee (D) is trying to keep her seat against Tom Schweich (R) and Charles Baum (L).

I’ve previously looked at the numbers from prior elections and primaries over the last four years or so and my assessments still stand I think. Roy Blunt looks like he could win, as will Tom Schweich. Both will win, I believe, due to the prevailing anti-Democrat and incumbent wave having taken the nation over the last year. From there it gets sketchy. Numerically my analysis led me to believe Russ Carnahan will hold on to his seat by sheer turnout. Though voter ire continues to grow in that district, historically it has leaned Democrat and said Democrats have had the lion share of the votes. This past primary continued to show the same percentage trend, even though more Republicans did vote for Mr. Martin than previous Republicans had garnered.

Since I have not followed the other seats and individuals, I cannot give any further assessment on Mr. Cleaver or Mr. Skelton’s chances, and as far as state offices, I’m clueless. I suspect that for the most part, each district will not vary by much in way of seats changing party hands. I’d love to see Mr. Clay lose his seat, but I just do not see it happening unless by a “miracle”. His district, like many, is fairly lopsided in his favor and leans heavily Democrat; even with the conservative, anti-establishment tide rising, MO 1 would have to have triple the Republican votes to unseat him. Again, the August primary did not show this happening. I bring up the August primary because I believe it could be a forecast of the November election and turnout when compared to 2008 and 2006. The primary this past August showed that Roy Blunt and Tom Schweich both have the numbers to beat Robin and Susan; conversely Russ and Lacy still looked strong.

All of that said, I’m pitching pragmatism out and sticking to principles. Over the years I’ve vacillated and analyzed who to vote for and why, often figuratively “holding my nose”. I did so in 2008 for McCain. That said, I voted Constitution Party for president in 2004. The point I’m making is that I’ve grown tired of the game and I want out. I no longer care about the bigger political picture because at the end of the day it always boils down to pragmatic compromise. It doesn’t matter what the issue is, who’s in power, etc.

The current political backlash and conservative/libertarian wave that is washing over the nation is trying to affect both parties and the system in general. As things move along though, what I see in the solidification and growth of the Tea Party and conservative movements gives me serious pause. I’m left with a feeling that we’re about to replace one establishment with another that will eventually be just as “bad” as the “first”. I say this because at the end of the day, while I’m fiscally conservative, my social values and beliefs come first. Frankly, what I see is lip service to social conservatism by the Tea Party and conservative up-swell, no matter how much they say otherwise.

The fact is that just as blacks have been seen as a reliable voter base for Democrats and have been used by the Democrat establishment, so too Christian conservatives and other social conservatives have been largely used by the Republicans and fiscal conservative politicians. This isn’t to say that socially conservative issues don’t get passed or promoted by Republicans and avowed conservatives, but as a rule it’s pretty clear that we are seen as a means to an end; political power. What is more, social conservatives are waking up. Many of us have been aware of this for some time, hoping things would change, but, with the conservative resurgence and the focus on fiscal issues, some are threatening to walk away.

As secular as ‘Atlas Shrugged’ is, it’s time for Christians to figuratively* go “John Galt”. Remember, we’re called to be in the world but not of it. Furthermore, as I previously discussed, we need to have a proper perspective on our role in our nation and government. This isn’t to say that we must totally disengage; rather it is to say that we need to think radically.

If you are a social conservative, placing high value on life, family and beliefs, then it is time to stop giving in to the political game of compromise – pragmatism. The left and Democrats may see this as a victory and gain for them and particular seats, but they’re not seeing the larger picture. The big picture is God; worship, devotion to Him and personal witness in our daily life – loving one another, spreading the Gospel. That is our primary duty. Instead, many Christians have been placing this nation before God and focusing way too much energy and faith in political action and laws. Sure, we should exercise our rights and fight to keep this nation on a good path, but I wonder how many of us have given lengthy introspection into our beliefs, core values and principles.

All of this is to say, I find that I cannot vote for Roy Blunt or Tom Schweich. I saw pragmatism rule the day during the primaries. My understanding has always been that every election should be voting for who you feel is best for the position, no matter if it’s a primary or regular election. You then continue to reassess at each stage. Typically the compromises come in during the general election, people largely lining up behind one of two party candidates. Instead I have heard conservative radio pundits say that the primary was a time to vote for the candidate who not only was the most conservative, but had the best chance of winning. Excuse me? This is the Buckley Rule. Excuse my French, but that’s bass ackward. You vote for the most conservative candidate, and then you MAKE them electable for the general. Many states have proved that they’re putting principle before pragmatism, such as Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, and look what happened. A flagging campaign became flush with cash once she won. She’s been the underdog the whole time. The same thing occured with in Nevada and no doubt in other states. Yet, here in Missouri, big names came out swinging for Blunt and Schweich while there were clearly more conservative candidates running such as Chuck Purgason and Tom Icet. Missouri is supposed to be a Tea Party hotbed, yet the Republican establishment ruled the day and the “Tea Party” and conservatives went right along all out of fear: Robin Carnahan and continued Democrat dominance. Vocally the Tea Party said they weren’t for Blunt, but polls say most who align with the Tea Party are firmly behind him… and then he went and signed their little treaty.

So what. This is what it boils down to; so what? I say again, perspective and priorities. Again and again we’re often left with a vote that equates to a “lesser of two evils” so to speak. Every vote rests on hope. Hope in a candidate didn’t start with Barack Obama. It began with the very first candidates American colonists elected. Time and time again they fail us, and by proxy we fail ourselves because we buy into the lie that is pragmatism and compromise. Squelch your distaste of candidate ‘x’ because of their stance on this issue because they’re promising ‘y’ and are good on ‘z’. It becomes a gamble, meanwhile they get snug in their seat and tell you year in and year out that they’re the only candidate for you to get things done. In part that’s certainly what the anti-incumbent mood is about in the nation, getting sick of entrenched politicians who’ve lied their whole career, but what I see being sold to social conservatives is just seat switching – musical chairs.

I will continue to vote for Republicans, but I’ll also vote for more third parties or no one at all if I’m displeased with the whole selection. I completely realize that many people may win who I don’t like, and laws and other things may change in such a way that is displeasing to me, even “harmful”. Again, this doesn’t mean I just take my licks. I have a right and privilege as every American does to engage in the system and with my elected officials. The point is that I’m refusing to play the game at all, and if enough people do it, the whole system of the political game will have to be radically redefined and played. I understand that on a national level the third parties are irrelevant by the machinations of the Republican and Democrat parties, but that is because we’ve allowed that to happen.

Do not vote for a party, hope or pragmatic political chess. Vote your principles and stick to them come what may. You shape them; don’t let them shape you.

And if Roy Blunt and Tom Schweich both lose this election, maybe that’ll be a good lesson to Missouri conservatives to stick to their principles instead of the St. Louis Tea Party Assoc. and establishment Republicans. Frankly I think the Tea Party movement is growing too fast and too big. They need some balloons popped to learn a little humility and slow down, not taking social conservatives – specifically Christians – for granted. It’s not the end of this nation or the world if Democrats continue to maintain power until 2012 or beyond – no matter how much they and president Obama continue to push us over the brink and/or into full statism.

– Backtracking a little, on the ballot measures, be sure you read them thru and do your own research. Specifically Amendment 3 and Prop. B. (more so B). The more I learn about Prop B, the less I like it. It was either sloppily put together or it’s another stealth bill like the cloning/stem cell bill Amendment 2 was in 2006. In a nutshell, what I surmise is that while on the surface the bill is emotively sound, it’ll actually do more harm than good. Many farmers are downright leery of it.

* I say figuratively because Ayn Rand and John Galt were/are not Christians and much of what Atlas Shrugged espouses is contrary to Christian belief. But you get the gist.

Recently Mr. Obama attended an event in New Mexico where a supporter asked him a question about his faith.  Mr. Obama answered; he wants to be clear after all.

He was asked ‘why he is a Christian’. His response? “I came to my Christian faith later in life and it was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead — being my brothers’ and sisters’ keeper, treating others as they would treat me. (He prays daily to) see God in other people and do our best to help them find their own grace. …We have Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, and that their own path to grace is one that we have to revere and respect as much as our own. And that’s part of what makes this country what it is. … ” Now, he mentions Christ dying for his sins and that we’re flawed, even humility, and that’s good, but taken with the whole response, it’s lukewarm water.

Sorry, but the more he opens his mouth and speaks about his faith, the more I am convinced that he is either a deluded fool, or an outright liar. If he truly does believe he’s a Christian, the beliefs he’s been taught run contrary to what I know of orthodox Christian beliefs – more so, what someone who professes to be a Christian would say when asked/pressed about their faith. Choice?! The debate about will, between Arminianism and Calvinism continues, but it’s a tricky path saying ‘I chose my faith.’ The more he talks, the more he muddies things up. A fond phrase of Mr. Obama’s is “Let me be clear,” yet on matters of faith he is anything but that.

Instead, what I see is social justice, black liberation theology and some universalism. He makes no mention of his depravity, but of his sin as mere ‘flaw’ and need for salvation, of brokenness. No mention of Jesus being The Only Way, merely, ‘it works for me’. No mention of assurance, of surety in faith by salvation. No mention of the sovereignty of God, but plenty of discussion about free will and grace. Yes, we are saved by grace, but it’s quite clear that Mr. Obama’s understanding about grace and salvation is skewed to put it mildly. The idea he speaks of, that a Muslim or a Hindu and especially an atheist will find grace on their own path? That’s universalism, that’s relativism “Christianized”.

It’s understandable that a politician walks a fine line, not wishing to offend people, but the Cross of Christ is offensive; it is meant to be! Furthermore, you can stand firm in your faith, and be tolerant to non-Christians without giving ground. Yes, Muslims have a right to believe, worship and build where and how they’d like within the law, but that doesn’t mean you water down the Bible to come off “good” for people. You don’t have to say that you believe Muslims are going to Hell, but you can say, “Christ is my Lord and Savior. I realized my need for Him, and that, thru Him only, could I find salvation, peace and real happiness. Others are free to believe as they wish, but I do hope and pray that they will come to find the real hope and peace that I found.”

Instead Mr. Obama focuses on works. That’s social gospel, liberation theology, heresy. We are not saved by our works. Either Mr. Obama has spent time truly studying and investigating what he believes and why, or he has fully drunk the kool-aid because it fits his deeper narrative and ideologies. I’ll say it again. Mr. Obama is not a Christian by his own words. He is not a Muslim either, he’s an autolater. He is one who practices autolatry – self-worship. His faith is a means to an end – some say even his ideologies are too. I believe his pronouncement and claims of Christianity are like much of his life, a façade, carefully orchestrated.
If Mr. Obama thinks that his statement will soothe or answer the continued doubts about his faith, he’s fooling no one but himself. All he has done is fan the flames. He might as well have poured some lighter fluid on the pit at the bar-b-que.

Maybe I’m parsing hairs, and maybe I’m focusing too much on particular aspects of his speech to the detriment of other aspects, but I’m not alone in my overall analysis: A rather damning look by a former Christian.

Here’s two other takes from CBN -the outcome is the same, no one will be happy – and WND.

At the very least, if Mr. Obama is truly a Christian, he needs to sit down and not only learn about what he believes and why, with logical consistency, but to be able to give a testimony and gospel presentation that doesn’t make more questions than actually clear anything up! Maybe I’m being too reactionary, too willing to get up on the bully pulpit, but I, like so many others are left utterly confused by this man, and every time he tries to clarify himself, we remain confused. No other president – not even George W Bush or Bill Clinton – has been this divisive. A good leader does not want to foster or promote confusion, even if there is disagreement.  More importantly, a true Christian will leave no one confused about what he believes or the reality of who he is.  Denominational differences are one thing, but Mr. Obama’s continued statements on faith go far beyond denominational, doctrinal differences.  His confusing statements go right to the core of Christian orthodoxy, which crosses denominational lines.

Crossposted at www.wadingacross.wordpress.com