It is Possible? Emergence of Major U.S. Third Political Party - Conservative Party Tests the 23rd New York District Race – Sara Palin Jumps on Board

American Conservative Party - The Changing American Political Landscape -image api

Addendum: To clarify there are two Conservative Parties - one the Conservative Party of New York, which nominated Doug Hoffman's as their candidate, and the American Conservative Party, which was founded in 2008.

According to Politico, the New York 23rd Districthas become a testing ground for the Conservative Party. As a general rule, a third party candidate rarely makes an impact in a state’s primary, let alone attains a higher office, be it a U.S. Congressional, U.S. Senate or State Governor’s seat. According to the Congressional Office of the Clerk only two seats are held by “Independents” in the U.S. Senate and the two major political parties hold all 50 of the State’s Governors positions.

That said, over the past six months, several conservative organizations, have attracted members from both Democrat, Republican, Conservative and Independent party affiliations; the Tea Party and 912 Project in response to multiple pieces of legislation passed or proposed by the Obama Administration and the Democrat controlled Congress.

The March on Washington to protest government waste and the growing deficit, attracted millions of disenfranchised voters and was downplayed in the U.S. press, . The Town Hall Meetings over health care reform saw huge attendance, all of which was characterized in the mainstream U.S. press as being designed by either Republican Party activist for large insurance companies. Leading members of the Democrat Party went so far as to chastise those attending as being “Nazi’s” or again, tools of the Republican Party or “Big Insurance”. Therein lay the problem with the extreme partisan policies of the current Administration and the like-minded members of the U.S. Congress – either ignorance or arrogance; a belief in the two party system is so entrenched in the minds of those in the beltway, that a failure to truly understand the pulse of the American electorate caused an extreme error in judgment. This backlash against a bi-partisan, multi-party protest has caused smaller parties to gain momentum, and this is now being tested in the New York 23rd district, and one would well imagine, that there are “Conservative” or Independent candidates in districts and states across the nation.

Is the angst of those who are investing their political affiliation into a third party directed solely at the Democrats? The resounding answer is no – a general distrusts of both political parties is fueling the move towards alternatives choices in government. During the Bush administration, a lack of a cohesive border control plan had conservatives up in arms. Between the two major political parties, conservatives or independents found the need for an alternative.

The New York 23rd appears to be a battleground of sorts, for both all three parties. The big story here is the fact that leading conservatives are jumping on board in support of a third party. A story by Conservative author and commentator, Michele Malkin is entitled: “Message to GOP: Can you hear conservatives now?”, and goes towards the general dissatisfaction conservatives feel towards the GOP “establishment”. That story has been updated, since GOP Vice Presidential Nominee, Sarah Palin, endorsed Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Candidate in the NY 23rd district. The Republican Candidate, Dede Scozzafava, was endorsed by former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, and is seen by those in the Conservative Party, as more of the same. In other words, the moniker that became popular during the last few decades, ”Republicat”, refers to a melding of the political ideology of both major political parties.

The result is that the latest poll shows that the Conservative Party candidate, has gained substantial ground in the past two weeks, giving credence to both the Tea Party and 912 Project members who have flocked to New York in his support. It is not only the fact that Hoffman shares similar ideals, but it is also a slap at those in the media and the administration who wrongly characterized both movements as “Republican”.
Should the election on the 23rd result in Hoffman becoming the first Conservative Party U.S. Congressional Representative, it might behoove those living in the glass bubble that is the arrogance of major political parties, to rethink the power of the ordinary American and their desire to follow the U.S. Constitution rather than stay complacent as so may have done in the past.

Additional Reference: List of 912 Party endorsed candidates

Obama Attends Rally for Embattled NJ Governor Corzine Draws Crowd of 3,500 - Next Stop Massachusetts – Rally for Deval Patrick.

Obama with Corzine, image Trentonian

President Obama has hit the campaign trail to try and bolster Democrat incumbent governor John Corzine, who is just weeks away from from possible early retirement. An article in Politico, entitled “Corzine milks Obama appearance”, speaks to the fact that the polls have tightened in recent days between Corzine and Republican rival, Chris Christie, but fails to mention the fact that there is a third party candidate who has gained ground, with both Corzine and Christie losing ground with New Jersey Voters. The Rasmussen poll suggests that it is impossible to predict an outcome at this point, therefore, one would think that an Obama appearance would bolster Corzine’s chances, attracting a large crowd in order to “get out the vote”.

The event, held at a Hackensack University, drew an enthusiastic crowd of 3,500, most of who were there to see the President. One has to understand that events where a sitting or former president visits a specific state, especially a blue state, are well documented in the press, weeks beforehand, giving plenty of time to draw significant overflow crowds. Former President Bill Clinton’s visit to support John Kerry’s presidential bid in Massachusetts drew crowds of the City of Worcester with people “lining the streets for miles”.

Perhaps Democrats in Massachusetts are more enthusiastic than those in New Jersey – Obama will be attending a fundraiser for Deval Patrick on the 23rd of October in Boston – Massachusetts, known as “the Bluest State”, (see presidential voting patterns by State; Massachusetts has only voted twice for a Republican (Ronald Reagan), in the past 30 years.) should see crowds “lining the street” to honor Obama’s visit to the Bay State. Although the fundraiser will undoubtedly be closed to the public, it has received significant media attention in the state since the announcement in early October, giving those who would even stand a chance of a glimpse of the President time to get into line. It will be interesting to see how this Bay State visit compares to Obama’s draw in New Jersey, as both sitting Governors have dismal approval ratings.

Alternately, Rasmussen’s latest Presidential Tracking Poll shows that the President is enjoying an unhealthy 27 percent “strongly approve”, giving him an overall approval rating of 47% Rasmussen polling has seen the president’s approval “negative” for the past week. This poll, coupled with the poll numbers of the democrat incumbents in both New Jersey and Massachusetts, may act as a harbinger of political rallies for Democrat incumbents elsewhere in the nation. If that is a case, it is a question of a brand gone band, and this will become evident as 2010 election rally’s begin in earnest. The question then will be, is Obama to the Democrats in 2010 as George Bush was to the Republican’s in 2008?

Anita Dunn - Media Controlled by Obama Campaign/Administration – Was the Media “In the Tank” for the Administration or merely duped? Analysis

Anita "I Control the Media" Dunn, with David Axelrod - image daily life

Within the past few weeks, Obama administration officials have been downplaying the role of the Fox News Organization - from Communications Director Anita Dunn to White House Advisor David Axelrod came comments designed to minimize the role of Fox as a legitimate news organization. Additionally, the administration has refrained from providing guests for Fox News shows, outlining the entire organization as one which is opinion driven rather than actual “news”. Anyone who has ever watched Fox programming understands that certain shows are “opinion driven”, but are presented in that manner, while the news segments, are no more or less different than those on CNN, CBS, or NBC, with one minor difference; anchors on Fox report the news, while opinion is interjected into broadcast from the other networks. (Many of which are not designed to be news networks, rather entertainment networks – CBS, ABC, NBC, while CNN is a straight “news” network with similar programming.) The reason: Fox continually questions the administration, which, apparently, is not the way Anita Dunn views the press – as an independent watchdog for the nation. The brouhaha is discussed here at the Detroit Free Press. This article appeared today.

Repeat: The Detroit Free Press

First one must understand that from the lefts perspective, Fox News, although an independent organization is viewed as being “conservative”, while the majority of journalists are seen as holding a left-of-center ideology. This perspective, pushed by the administration and organizations such as the DNC and George Sorros’ Moveon.org, is an attempt to dismiss a point of view contrary to their own, specifically when it comes to the networks pure opinion segments.
When reading the Detroit Free Press Article, one sees the “disdain” for Fox; however, one sees something highly unusual, a defense of the organization – unheard of until recently.

Another article in the Chicago Sun Times which appeared yesterday, is the most scathing attack on the U.S. Media and the administration seen to date. Entitled: “Excuses wearing thin for Obama, media pals”, the piece by Steve Huntley questions why, on so many occasions, has the press not investigated certain aspects of the Obama administrations and goes on to name names, demeaning MSNBC and CNN, as being virtual mouthpieces for the administration. (Note: The Sun Times, has, to date, the best record as far as pieces questioning the administration – which may be why their on-line poll, gives the Obama Presidency such low grades - see screenshot)

Chicago Sun Times On-Line Poll - Obama Approval with Article on Media

What has caused this sudden backlash (two articles – so far), against certain media organizations and the White House by, what one might call, sister organizations?
The knowledge that those who work for and in the news organizations have been duped, used and manipulated by the Obama Campaign and administration, which had previously been held to such high esteem.

In a video that surfaced recently, White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn, while attending a conference on January 12, 2009, laid out how the campaign, and consequently the administration controlled an otherwise witless media. A partial abridged transcript of the video follows, with the complete video, (for verification) which by now, has been seen by a certain percentage of the press that, from what can be surmised by the first salvo of articles today, is none too happy with being “witless servants” of a political campaign, versus, “willing accomplices” as was previously believed by a majority of the nation.

One has to wonder, why it took so long for these journalist to investigate and discover the intent and manipulation of “Team Obama” – understanding that the definitive distrust of the previous administration, by the media, was so engrained, that those journalists, momentarily forgot that their job was to act as a watchdog and report, regardless of the findings; so much did they long to believe in what the media itself, was guilty of perpetuating, the evil of Conservatism versus the good of a progressive candidate who would be President. They were, in simple terms, in denial.

Denial, however, can only last so long, when evidence of being a “useful tool” is brought to light – it is just a question now of which one what is known as the “mainstream media” saw this first. One has to believe it was someone connected with the NBC program “Saturday Night Live”. Although a comedy skit show, the focus on the political has been prevalent for the past 30 years, and often the parodies are predictive (See Ford and Nixon walking hand and hand on SNL before the election that saw, Jimmy Carter enter the White House). It is a part and parcel of American culture, a blend of entertainment and politics.

Now the question is how will the media respond in the coming weeks? Will they continue to deny the fact that they were used by the administration, or will they now stand up and fight for the profession they chose? It is the media that should, regardless of political party, report upon and disclose information regarding both policy and politician in pointed fact, so that the populace may actually receive news (see FOX), and where opinion is printed (or broadcast), note it as such (again see FOX).

Transcription in part of Anita Dunn – on the Obama Campaign Controlling the Press
From: The Movement for Change: Barack Obama Campaign. Part 8 Anita Dunn and Ben Self Auditorio Fundación Global Democracia y Desarrollo January 12, 2009

“We had people assigned to us, after having one too many emails that his candidate and his wife said, isn’t there something more we can do – we had obviously a large department to deal with the traditional media of the united states – and given the international interested in this election, we had a huge press corp to deal with - but the reality a huge part of our press strategy was making the media cover what he was actually saying as opposed to why the campaign was saying it what the tactic was – we had a huge premium both on message discipline on people on the camping in leaking to reporters or discussing our strategy or cover what we were saying. Making the Press Cover What we wanted “to get the Message Out without having to actually talk to reporters – so it was very much we controlled it, as opposed to the press controlling it. Very rarely did we communicate to the press what we did not absolutely we could control.”

Party Like It's 1979 - Oil Rises, Dollar Weakens - Can Gas Lines Be Far Behind?

Gas Rationing Under Carter Produced Long Lines at the Pumps - image Todays Campus

2009 - The Stage is Set
The price of oilhas increased this week, up to $80 per barrel, causing an added burden to the millions of economically stressed Americans. Historically, when the dollar is in decline, and fuel costs rise, there is a spike in inflation.

1978 to 1979 – The Road to Ruin

In 1978 the rising cost of oil against a constantly weakened U.S. Dollar lent to a deepening recession and eventually, gas lines. Although there were several factors that contributed to the situation, a trade imbalance, Carter’s “Windfall Profit Tax” on Oil companies, which did not take into account the fact that oil companies would reduce production, added to the falling dollar, inflation rose above 9% in 1978, after the oil prices rose against a weakened dollar. Within six months these factors contributed to a gasoline shortage which led to long lines at gas stations and in the face of falling oil reserves, the Democrat controlled Congress gave President Carter, the green light to ration gas. In addition, the rise in the unemployment rate and the rate of inflation in 1979 was linked at the time to to the weakening dollar and subsequent fuel shortage.

Stimulus programs implemented under Carter in the beginning of his administration, failed to produce any significant results, and contributed to the increase in both corporate and individual tax liabilities, which, in the end, resulted in the loss of manufacturing jobs, a loss of corporate tax revenue, as companies fled or folded, an increase dependence on foreign goods, which resulted in a trade deficit and devalued dollar, high unemployment, and eventually, with the rise of oil, nightmarish inflation, and rationing of fuel.

To fully understand how this took place; the fact that President Jimmy Carter, with little to no governing experience (one term Governor of Georgia), in concert with a party majority in both the House and the Senate, entering the White House with an existing financial crisis, may have made decisions that were naive at best; Carter prescribed to a global and progressive point of view, and governed in like manner. Higher taxes on the “rich”, and an increase in entitlement programs, eventually pounded the U.S. economy into the ground. What is mind boggling, is that this historical road map, instead of being rejected, is being embraced by the current administration, tenfold.

Rasmussen: GOP Likely Voters Choose Huckabee over Romney – Women Prefer Huckabee - 81% strongly believes next President will be a Republican.

Polls Indicate GOP Change in Attitude - image next right

Rasmussenreleased a second GOP 2012 poll result yesterday which paired Mike Huckabee against 2008 campaign rival Mitt Romney. In this scenario Huckabee received 44% to Romney’s 39%, with Huckabee leading Romney in the women’s vote. Both Huckabee and Romney have maintained high profiles since the 2008 election; both affiliated with PAC’s that have, to date, aided Republican candidates across the nation, building alliances for the 2012 contest. That said, Rasmussen rightly cautions that it is early in the game, citing the 2008 early polls that produced Hillary Clinton as the frontrunner, with Obama unknown at the time. The same could be said of the 2012 Republican field, which had Giuliani as a frontrunner, giving one the understanding that there is still time for candidates to come forward to represent both major political parties. One thing that is not being touted in this particular poll (and the preceding GOP poll) is the high rate of confidence among GOP voters that the next president will be a Republican – 81% strongly believe this to be the case. This begs the question; if the Republican Party is demoralized and in dire straits, as suggested by most media outlets, then why the high level of confidence?

While again, it is early in Barak Obama’s administration, his favorable ratings continue to drop and/or remain stagnant. As of Sunday only 29% of those polled give Obama strong approval ratings, and the President is facing a tough branding battle with two 2009 gubernatorial races, New Jersey, where the Democrat Incumbent has rebounded in the past few weeks in the polls against his Republican opponent, who still holds a slim lead. In Virginia, the Incumbent Democrat has up to an 11 point deficit (depending upon which poll one subscribes to), with few weeks left to make headway. The incumbent Deeds, is bringing in Obama in an effort to “get out the vote” in the heavily Democrat north eastern Virginia region. Should this particular seat fall to the Republican challenger, Bob McDonnell, it will be a scathing rejection of the Democrat Brand and will act as harbinger of the 2010 election. As it now stands, key influential Democrat, Harry Reid is being trounced by not one, but two Republican’s prior to any primary. Early polls from Real Clear Politics, see Republican’s leading in almost all races, which, would be an historical correction with regards to the Congress. (The Congress ebbs and flows between those two major parties every 6 to 8 years.) It may be beyond the “Rock Star Status” of Barack Obama to maintain Virginia as a Blue State, historically speaking.

2012 Polls – 2008 Revisited with a Vengeance – Huckabee and Clinton rise to the Top in early Polling.

Most Likely Match-up for 2012 - photo MTV.com

The old adage, “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”, may be coming back to bite both national parties in the early polling leading to the not-so-distant 2012 election. Who will actually run for the Oval Office, is clearly, unknown at this time, that said, pollsters, and those with an almost unhealthy interest in politics, began polling almost immediately after Barack Obama’s inauguration. That said, one can see who may or may not be positioning for a run, just by appearances in certain states, fund on hand from previous runs, and PAC’s represented by that potential candidate.

The actual list of who’s running normally isn't available until at least mid to late 2010, when the invasion of Iowa and New Hampshire begins in earnest. However, it may be starting earlier this season, due to a lack of “hope” and little “change” that the public, with minimal patience when it comes to “rock stars” and “fame”, start seeking the next “public servant star”. This time, however, the odds of someone with a flair for expression, good looks, and snappy slogans, will be last on the list of choices – the public is seeking moderate to conservative, and safe candidates – one need only look at Real Clear Politics to get a sense of another phenomena – “out with the incumbent”, specifically if that incumbent even smacks of “hope and change”. Of note: Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, who is currently being bested, by not one, but two Republican’s who must face off in a primary. In essence, no matter which one wins the Primary, it is clear that Reid will be retired in 2010.

The polls, obviously , are subject to change, no so much in 2010, (unless, of course, there is a large scandal pinned to one of the hopefuls), but early races in 2009, see that tactic wearing thin. In the race for New Jerseys’ Governor’s Seat, the fight has gone to the school yard, with the incumbent, Corzine, accusing his opposition, Republican Chris Christy, of being “unfit for office”, literally, calling the slightly overweight challenger ”fat” in ads running across New Jersey. This sounds like desperation and naiveté, when the percentage of Americans who are considered “overweight’ is according to the CDC, a startling 67% - which translates into a landslide should 67% of voters take offense at the Governors tactics.

Negative campaign ads can work, but it must be subtle, not in your face, and or harping, while offering one solution (See series of ads ran by former Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healy, (Republican MA) against Deval Patrick (Democrat-MA). (Additionally, although touted as being one of the most liberal states in the nation, it is interesting to note that not one woman has been elected to a position of national import In a Statewide Race in the Commonwealth. The only woman to sit in the Governor’s office was Jane Swift, through an appointment, not an election, and she suffered the consequences as every move she made, regarding her femininity was scrutinized ad nausea. Therefore, any woman running in Massachusetts should understand that the glass ceiling has yet to be broken, therefore, the safest seats are those that either stay in state, or a U.S. Congressional District. This is one thing that is disheartening to any woman living in the Bay State and the one area where one hopes for change (regardless of Party). (Disclosure: Conservative Feminist)

Given that the 2012 polls are based on those individuals who a) ran in 2008, or b) appear to be positioning themselves for 2012, and or c) are being polled based on a lack of hope or change, an interesting pattern has developed that bears further scrutiny.

The nice guy: Mike Huckabee, who ran a shoestring campaign that saw the 10-1/2 term former Governor of Arkansas soundly stopped Mitt Romney, (a fiscal conservative who governed Massachusetts with an eye towards appeasing groups not necessarily associated with conservatives). Although both Huckabee and Romney saw McCain take the lead after Super Tuesday (See South Carolina, the only primary where Fred Thompson ran, splitting the Huckabee vote and giving just enough momentum to McCain to make him the frontrunner.) The facts stand that Huckabee took the South, the Midwest, and in states that McCain did win, (those that are winner take all), the leads were narrow, and 1 to 2 points separated the two candidates.) Romney did well in the northeast (Massachusetts – his “home state”), Michigan, Utah and Wyoming and in States such as California, where the delegates are apportioned based on a percentage of votes. Huckabee, however, continued to be well-liked, a well-rounded fiscal and social conservative that, through his program on FOX, consistently debates those with opposing views, and welcoming discourse to find a common ground. It is the way he governed Arkansas, making his tenure as Governor one of the most successful the State had seen. An astute Politician, but one that is sincere in his belief that he works “for the people” - Huckabee has a loyal following that has not waned since 2008. Therefore it should come as no surprise, that two recent polls have Huckabee on top. The first, the Iowa Values Voters Straw Poll (the earliest indicator of what may happen in the all important Iowa Caucus), (clearly dismissed as irrelevant by media pundits) saw Huckabee emerge as the winner. (Tim Pawlenty received a respectable 2nd). The first national poll of Republican “potential” candidates, by Rasmussen gave Huckabee the lead again, with Romney second, and Palin, Gingrich, and Pawlentry trailing amongst GOP voters.

Granted it is early, but one of the biggest voting blocks, which failed to come to the polls in force in 2008, (See: Top Evangelical Leaders urge no support of any GOP Candidate in 2008) and Despite large turnout for 2008 elections there was little change in the actual vote between 2004 and 2008. Coincidence – hardly, when one considers that 30 (conservative figure) of the top evangelical leaders basically told their flock – not to vote in 2008.

Times have changed, and with the ever decreasing dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs of the country (this is definitely split along party lines, with Democrats firmly (for the most part) behind the President, while Republican and Independents looking for alternatives. (See 2010 races).

What of the Democrats? Should Barack Obama continue his Carteresque drive over the proverbial cliff, a primary challenge (which occurs no matter who the sitting President is), may this time, see a change in who would be at the top of the DNC ticket. As buyer’s remorse has set in rather early, an interesting poll released by Gallop shows Hillary Clinton with a strong lead in the “popularity” contest that is American Politics. Not for nothing, but Clinton, who, had the popular vote counted, instead of the absolute coup mounted by those Super Delegates, would have been sitting in the White House. Moreover, one is given the impression, that both economics and foreign policy would be in better hands. Clinton had a clear 6 year senate voting record as a moderate, who voted on issues, not with an eye towards partisanship, rather an eye towards what might be best for the country. This, in the end, is what cost her the nod from die-hard leftists Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi and the other progressive “Super Delegates” that foisted Barack Obama on the populace. Clinton, on her part, has said that she has no intention of running for the office, however, it is early, and one thing about Hillary, she cares about both her country and her party. In other words, Hillary Clinton, although not a “rock star” is “nice”, that said, it may be too little too late, as the mood of the country has shifted in recent months, and voters are taking a turn, that is not just moderate right, but farther right (which also, would, if the trend continues, leave Huckabee in a bit of a pickle).

Therefore, if nice guys are the ticket for 2012, those people that exude confidence and trust, one may see an interesting match up that should have taken place in 2008, Huckabee and Clinton, battling for the hearts and minds of the American People. It would be a political junkies dream come true and those progressive journalists (name a network, any network) worst nightmare – Double the fun.