WSJ/NBC Poll – Obama Confidence Low - Approval Sinks – Nation Rejects Both Major Political Entities

Most American's having difficulty telling DC Democrats or Republicans apart - image toonrefugee.com

The latest WSJ poll is out and according to NBC News the nation is no longer divided on President Obama’s capabilities; they are disapproving by the widest margin to date. In the same poll analysis by NBC, they note that the Republicans in Congress are doing worse than the President – and nearing the end of the article, note that most voters would rather not see their incumbent in office any longer (NBC News).

That was made evident last week in the stunning (to D.C.) defeat of Eric Cantor to College Professor, David Brat. One might suggest that that scenario will play out in coming primaries, regardless of which Party flavor, in the ensuing months. When it comes to the general, one might predict 40-50% of the seats will changes hands, which is not, by any means a conservative figure, however, when one looks closely at the 2013 local elections (yes, this anti-incumbent fervor had a trickle-down effect) – the incumbent lost in large numbers, in cities small and large.

As the leadership of each major political party has been called into question as of late, the 2016 prospects of those Libertarian Leaning politicians is looking up.

In the past weekends IA GOP convention Rand Paul (K), spoke to a room that decidedly changed their minds regarding the Senator, having previously been committed to other potential candidates, they came away deciding that Paul was the better choice, or at the very least, someone they would vote for .(U.S. News)

At the Massachusetts Democrat Convention Martha Coakely and Steve Grossman will face off in primaries against two others who made the ballot, according to the Boston Globe , the winner of which will face Charlie Baker for the Bay State corner office. Normal Massachusetts politics generally has a solid candidate going into the general, with either little or no primary challengers.

One might see both major political party fractioning in the ensuing years, as well as shifts, the Democrats becoming decidedly Progressive Socialist while Republicans more Libertarian in nature. Voter angst against the status quo will undoubtedly ensure that this scenario plays out either in whole or in part.

Paul Rand (KY) – No to Troops in Iraq – the Right Direction

Taking the higher road, Rand Paul, Senator from Kentucky and potential 2016 Presidential Candidate, suggested it would be a mistake for the US to send troops, once again, into Iraq. US News carried the report this morning (available here) on Paul’s statement.

Paul is correct in this opinion as timing is everything and the reduction in forces to a bare minimum in Iraq with instability a key in the region, was, to say the least, naive. The problem began with the initial incursion that may have set the stage for a later coup in Iran, but failed with time and changes in U.S. administrations. With the lack of foresight on the part of the Bush administration, or contingent plans in the event of a drawn out process both politically and in theater – the most beneficial move would have been to strike and leave once proof or no of WMD’s was ascertained.

The problems of the Middle East, oil notwithstanding, would have made George Washington suggest a 300 year moratorium on any type of intervention on the part of the U.S. With an abundance of well-intentioned mistakes of eons, including members of both of today’s political parties, it would behoove the next administration to take a more Washingtonian stance.

In summary – George W. Bush started the problem, Barack Obama has compounded the problem, and Paul’s stance regarding deployment or no is given not without some thought, be it “popular” or not –a refreshing change of pace.

The New Yorker on David Brat – and the 99% comparison to Elizabeth Warren

Oddly enough, the New Yorker’s take on David Brat (R) upset over Eric Cantor (R) in the VA primary, is spot on, while missing a greater point. They compare the economics professors abhorrence of crony capitalism to the Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) 99% Occupy Movement. The major difference in this analogy is that regardless of how one paints the Conservative – the one thing that they are dead set against is corporate welfare – those Billionaires are just fine, unless they are taking dollars from the government. On Warren, the billionaires are fine as long as they are being taxed, and most liberals don’t understand that the government subsidizes corporations.

The story, otherwise is worth the read (Read full story here) as it touches on the angst of those who have been railing against government bailouts pre-Obama – or, in simple terms-where the Tea Party originated.

Perhaps understated is the relationship between the Libertarian and the Republican’s as a whole – the key that they have conservative values, underscores the difference between free market peoples who do not consider the Chamber of Commerce, or business as needing assistance from the government.

If there was less of a penchant by the media to portray every free market Republican (Libertarian) as a “Tea Party” member, and or out-of-touch, perhaps they may want to reconsider the message and cease paining all with a rather larger brush.

However, that may not fit into the overall scheme of things – as when the general public listens to one of those Free Market politicians who are merely stating the obvious –they tend to vote, and as it was noted in the article by the New Yorker – to cross party lines in droves to do so. They also most likely will vote their conscience not their political party – rather than a Warren who will vote strict party line-similar to Obama.