From Boston to Chicago – Battles Waged in Otherwise Democrat Strongholds Point To Overall Voter Disillusionment. The Rise of The Phone Book Candidate.

The Boston Globe’s morning article ”Up and Down the Ballot, GOP is Dreaming Big” talks about political parties possible gains and/or losses in what was once known as one of the “bluest” states. The Globe references the election of Republican Scott Brown in January and queries if that election were an anomaly or a change in the attitude of voters towards the State GOP. What the Globe, as well as conventional U.S. media are either not understanding, or ignoring, is that this election is not about one political party, rather it is about the rejection of ideology.

As President Obama made a swing through Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois, in an attempt to rally the Democrat base, he warned supporters that Republicans would undo the “progress that we’ve made over the past couple of years”(Reuters).

The President appears to have hit the nail on the head. It is specifically the type of “progress” that the American people are rejecting in 2010 as it was the lack of progress that was rejected in 2008. President Obama was elected on the promise of hope and change; increased protection for the middle class specifically from tax burden, an end to war, and most importantly a new era of transparency and a return to bi-partisanship. What the electorate received was exactly the opposite.

In a nation where two parties dominate the political arena, the ups and downs of both parties have, to date, been fairly predictable, however, this election and most probably going forward, the trend has shifted to one of individuals investing more time in educating themselves about the candidates, to the point where no amount of robo-calls, negative advertising, and or please from party influential’s, will make a whit of difference.

The election of Scott Brown was not about the Republican party (although he ran as a Republican), it was the rejection of the ideology of one-party rule, either in a state or a nation, as well as the “progress” made by a Congress and President in concert, which was soundly rejected by a majority.

With a constant bad news on every front – from potential terrorists attacks, to the rise in utility bills, rise in insurance premiums, the prospect of those on Social Security not receiving an increase in benefits for the second year in a row, the fear of not having a job, finding a job, losing a job, being unable to move across state lines to find a new job (either by not having the financial ability to do so, or the lack of jobs everywhere in the states) – people are not merely angry, they are depressed. Some of those who are angry with the current situation are heading to the polls on November 2nd, and those who are depressed over the decisions they made in 2008 are planning to sit it out. Those who have never voted, for a variety of reason, are now registering, for the most part, as “independents”.

The reality is, that although no one has a crystal ball, and polls, even those scientific polls, show a margin of error that allows for a “toss-up”- there will be significant change on the 3rd of November, (given some of the Congressional districts might be decided by a handful of votes), and that change is a rejection of the status quo.

When pollsters include the question of choosing an unknown out of a phone book over an incumbent – a growing majority believe the man on the street is more capable than the current office holder. Therefore, it is a question of those desiring to effect change in the direction of politics and the two-party process in Washington that will rule out. The incumbents, one must remember, were, when they first took office, merely people out of a “phone book” as well, having the same beginning qualifications as those now running for the first time. It is what the incumbents have done with their time, and how well that resonates with the voters that will rule out (not including gerrymandering, voter fraud and the like). Many of those who will be elected on the 2nd, will not have had huge war chests, will not have reached every household in a State or Congressional district, or state district, they will merely be: that person out of a phone book, given the same opportunity to either represent the people of a State or District in a manner that is both transparent as well as bi-partisan, and perhaps most importantly to take that progress made back to the drawing board.

Incidentally, endorsements from the Press, touted by both sides, Republican and Democrat, are suggestions by editorial boards, and have, since 2008, held little influence over the electorate. It is the endorsement not of other politicians (representing Washington), that will make or break a candidate; it will be the endorsement of the people that rules the day. It is also a numbers game, as to the ideology of the individual voter and whether they hold conservative, moderate or progressive views. Those moderates and conservatives are the majority, and the probability of the phone book candidate winning in the end is likely. Experience, in this election, will not garner much sympathy from those types of voters and that is regardless of party affiliation.

Struggling Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Campaigns on Abortion – Is it Truly a Social Conscious or a Sure-Fire Fundraiser that Motivates?

Barbara Boxer Uses Abortion Issue in Desperation - image Politico

FromPolitico: Barbara Boxer, in a rally at a Hollywood, CA hotel, claimed that her opponent, Republican Carly Fiorina, “would become a sure Senate vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.” Apparently, Boxer is unaware that neither Chamber of the House, Senate or Congress, has the right to overturn any Supreme Court decision. The only “danger” to a “woman’s right to choose” would be the people’s hiring of a President, who would then have the right to appoint Supreme Court justices, which are first vetted and approved by the Senate. The abortion football, like the “gay marriage” football, have become nothing more or less than political cards, played to the public and used with no real intent or power, for that matter, of moving the debate forward or solving any issue. When someone declares their personal belief in life or abortion, one is merely stating an opinion and unless than someone is sitting on the highest court in the land, it is a moot point.

Therefore, Boxer’s logic (and any other politician who tries this tactic) follows that the voters in California, or elsewhere where that tired card is played, feel that “protecting the rights of the unborn” or “fighting for a woman’s right to choose”, at this point in the game, should trump the fact that there is high unemployment, and major entitlement programs upon which she (and her like-minded peers), voted upon in order to suck the life out of our nation. Social issues come into play when the economy is not in “tatters”, and when all is “rosy”. What Boxer, and other politician’s in her position (danger of losing a job, and joining the 9.6% of the nation (low estimate by some economists) who are no longer employed) are left with, after either knowingly, or worse going to incompetence, unknowingly took part in the legislation that caused this mess, are the “scare tactics of social issues”. Regardless of Fiorina’s personal beliefs, or O’Donnel’s, or Witman’s, or Pelosi’s, or Murry’s, or any one of the women running who are either pro-life or pro-abortion, the women (or men) who count are sitting on the Supreme Court.

It is, as of the present time, a women’s right to choose whether or not to end the life of a child in utero, however, those who might matter politically are at the State level, not the Federal level, and would move legislation forward that would either limit or increases access to abortion, and those laws are then challenged – in the courts. So, in reality the politician’s one must be most concerned with, specifically on the issue of abortion, are those who are applying for jobs as State Representatives and State Senators and Governors who would sign into law a bill on the subject – however, no state can trump the Supreme Court. No one, in any position in a State or Federal office, now, or in the foreseeable future, has the ability to overturn anything.

It is the duping of those who have no clue when it comes to civics, that “career” politicians’ hope to prey upon. It is the collective body politic, that would stand to move an issue one way or the other, and the time it takes to do so is obviously lengthy. Roe vs. Wade was decided upon in in 1973 and to date, no one politician or individual has brought a successful appeal forward to the only body upon which the issue is adjudicated. It is especially shameless when a woman in the political arena, either pro-or anti abortion, uses this issue to campaign, without specifically acknowledging the steps necessary to move it forward, and either their or their oponnents very minor role in the process, they are not feminists, they are merely taking advantage of other women.

The Democrats, who are clearly in danger of losing their majority, cannot “man up” (how sexist) and campaign on their records – records which the voting public who are motivated by the economy are clearly aware. Wild claims, made in front of clueless celebrities, with the backing of the nation’s foremost lobby on abortion (N.A.R.A.L.) smack of desperation and an entreaty for hard cash – which Boxer will need to clear her debts after Nov. 2nd.