THE TUSCON MASSACRE and AMERICAN CULTURE - CAN THERE BE A SOLUTION?

INTRODUCTION

The violent events of Tuscon would be an earth shattering blow to the sanctity and integrity of any society. On it's face the shooting of 20 people, who were attending a political meeting, could be symptomatic of a deep malaise in that society. This particularly so as among the 6 dead is a Federal Chief Justice of Arizona, a congressional staffer and a nine year old child. In critical condition too, was, the chief target of this outrage, Gabriella Gifford, an elected Representative of the United State's Congress. This senseless killing raises issues about the culture that it occurred in. 

The prevailing culture is embedded in Constitutional law and American history itself. Society needs to take note of the consequences that might ensue should violence become a regular byproduct of political discourse. This type of gun violence is common and the response to each of these overwhelming tragedies is predictable.  Each catastrophe, as was this, is handled as if it some type of anomaly and rarity that has been perpetrated by a "lone nut". The calamity is then met with crises management rather than an analysis of the underlying causes and figuring out a comprehensive plan as at how to prevent the next one.

The Tuscon incident, is the first time that a mass killing took place in an everyday conventional political context. (In Oklahoma, Timothy McVeigh acted as a representative of the lunatic fringe). This potentially could set the stage for anarchy. There are supporters, of the right to bear arms, who believe that this right is also an insurance policy against the possibility of a tyrannical regime ever overthrowing the Constitution in this country. There are others who believe the answer is arming everyone - a return to the Wild West.

ENDEMIC VIOLENCE AND GUNS.

As an isolated happening this circumstance would be unsettling enough but mass violence has become commonplace on the American scene. This so much so that it is only the "big" incidents that see the light of day. As opposed to acts of externally grown terrorism this regular home grown violence, for violence sake, is sadly, uniquely American. There appear to be knee jerk responses following these major atrocities. After each and everyone there is a call for some sort of gun control. Also there is to a lesser or greater extent references to the pernicious influence of inflammatory speech and the portrayal of violence in the media. Inevitably, too, are the calls for better care and control for the mentally unstable. Then after some token activity the incident is forgotten and we move on till the next traumatic upheavel.

Violence is endemic. It is instructive to visit violence that occurs at institutes of learning where one might least expect it. There has been a succession of school and university incidents of injury and death. In 2009 and 2010 alone there were 14 incidents that involved death and injury and 27 involved injuries. There were also literally hundreds of incidents involving firearm possession and even shootings. For practical purposes other than Columbine, (18 killed), Virginia Tech, (33 killed), University of Austin Texas, (16 killed), California State University, (7 killed) and Northern Illinois, (6 killed), everything else is largely outside the public consciousness.

Then of course there are attacks on postal facilities, usually by disaffected employees. There have been well over 20 since 1980, the most recent being in Tennessee last year. The frequency that these attacks occurred led to the introduction, in the vernacular, of the term "going postal", a term commonly used for someone going off the deep end irrationally. Other, recent events that engendered 24/7 coverage on the news channels were the 2002 Beltway sniper killings, (10 dead 3 critically wounded) and the recent Fort Hood massacre responsible for 12  deaths and the wounding of 30. These are just some examples of these occurences that are not foreign to even churches and are common in families. All of these whether it be the Oklahoma bombings or any other are handled the same way- numbness, grief, "pulling together as a nation" and "healing".

And all this does not even begin to look at the impact of gun violence in society as a whole. In the USA over a 100,000 gun incidents are recorded of which close on 32,000 died. Of 20,000 people that attempted suicide with a gun only 3,000 survived. U.S. homicide rates are 6.9 times higher than rates in 22 other populous high-income countries combined, despite similar non-lethal crime and violence rates.  The firearm homicide rate in the U.S. is 19.5 times higher. Among 23 populous, high-income countries, 80% of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States. 

So there is little doubt there is a problem.

 FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY AND TUSCON

With this culture of violence rampant, and if it was to become as commonplace in politics as it is elsewhere, we would on our way down the slippery slope to anarchy. (Already a victim of the Tuscon carnage threatened a Tea Party member, at a public meeting, with death).

While political motives do not appear to be in play in Tuscon, the episode did take place in the context of political rhetoric which nakedly and unashamedly used metaphors of violence.  Sarah Palin had drawn up a map of the USA with 20 bulls eyes and crosshairs on it. These depicted key seats that the Tea Party was targeting. One of these was Gifford's, a conservative Democrat in a republican stronghold. And after Giffords' Tucson office was vandalized that same month, the Democratic congresswoman told MSNBC, "We're on Sarah Palin's targeted list. But the thing is, the way she has it depicted it has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. And when people do that, they've got to realize there are consequences to that action."

Palin, who touts her gun toting heritage, also tweeted, "Don't retreat, RELOAD!" Palin mocked the criticism of her as being politically correct, and used her Facebook platform to apply the same language to College basketball's Final Four.  

Jesse Kelly, the Tea Party Republican candidate defeated by Gifford, held a rally where they fired off machine guns!

Chief Justice Roll too has had his share of invective. Roll, one of those shot and killed in Tucson, had ruled in 2009 that a lawsuit by illegal immigrants against an Arizona rancher could go forward. Afterward, U.S. Marshal David Gonzales said that talk radio shows fanned the flames and prompted hundreds of calls to the judge, some of them threatening. "They said, 'We should kill him. He should be dead,'" Gonzales told the Arizona Republic.

In the wake of the tragedy, Arizonian Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik criticized those who are making a living off "inflaming the American public." As a public official he had little doubt that there was a climate that was being created that could result in chaos.

So the writing is on the wall. With violence rampant and political divisiveness at an all time high one does not need this inflammatory rhetoric.

HISTORICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR GUNS.

It does not take much research to identify the historical basis to this phenomenon. America has always been a frontier society. Hollywood has provided endless evidence in depicting ongoing wars against the indigenous Indians, the war of Independence and the Civil war. However the cult of the gun, it's power and the tremendous role it played in in the society of the West was immortalized in Western movies. The skills of how fast you could draw and shoot straight defined your power and were the most saleable qualities on the job market. But the reverence for the gun is ingrained far more deeply than that. It is enshrined in the American Constitution as an inalienable right in the Second Amendment. This right assumes almost a religious undertone by it's adherents.

THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION,(NRA).

The National Rifle Association, founded in 1871, is the organization that integrates and articulates the cause. They are one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington and contribute lavishly to campaign funds. In addition to the philosophical arguments for their "right" there are strong commercial interests of the gun sellers that carry weight in more ways than one. Nor do they have any false modesty about their political power maintaining inter alia that the NRA were responsible for keeping out Gore in 2000 who had advocated responsible gun control. They maintianed that they were further instrumental in electing even more gun control advocates in 2002.

The NRA's philosophy is no better articulated than an article on their website:

"For almost 200 years, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was sacred in American law. In addition to hunting, the right of law-abiding citizens to buy, keep and carry guns was essential for defending yourself and your family.  The reason that gun rights was included in the Bill of Rights was as a last resort both against foreign invaders and also as an insurance policy against the possibility of a tyrannical regime ever overthrowing the Constitution in this country".

While the political battles are never over they don't appear a real issue for the moment. Obama generally believes in gun rights, Reid the powerful Democratic leader in the Senate is strongly pro and so is  Gifford.  Clinton passed an Act that for 10 years prevented anyone from buying these powerful semi automatics that would have limited the carnage at Tuscon but Congress allowed it to fall away in 2004. This latest episode is all but forgotten in the halls of Congress and there is no legislation pending.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND THE COURTS.

As far as the Courts are concerned they have been supportive of the "right" in general and the Supreme Court have ruled that the States have no right to place any restrictions on gun owners and sellers other than to allow background checks that have proved ineffective. Those prohibited for one reason or another can get a gun and if you fail you have only a one in a 120,000 chance of being prosecuted for illegally trying. Even though mentally disabled people are listed and should not be able to buy a gun, this provision has proved useless with several of the perpetrators of violence who were so classified, including the Tuscon perpetrator, still able to get guns.

Bear in mind that all the second amendment states is - ".A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".  Thus far it has been interpreted as meaning the right of ownership, possession and transportation of guns.  The current Supreme Court regards itself as "constitutionalist" and this has generally meant that they don't easily interfere with the literal meaning of the Constitution's contents. The latter states pure and simply that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. In a landmark decision in the District of Columbia in 2008 the court affirmed this right is unconnected to the militia and can apply to other situations such as self protection and protection of family.

So it is unlikely that the Courts would act as a vehicle for change in gun law.

THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY AND THE COURTS 

The first amendment essentially guarantees for seperation of church and state and freedom of religion. In addition it allows for free speech, free press, right to assembly and right to petition the government. The Freedom of Speech and Free Press have, too, been broadly interpreted by the courts . In most other democratic countries there are defined limits to speech which include incitement to violence. However the Courts have over the last half century raised the bar as to what speech is not allowed under the First Amendment.

In the early half of the 20th Century the printing of a pamphlet that, inter alia, intimated fervent opposition to the draft and urged potential draftees not to be subject to intimidation was considered to  create a clear and present danger to the State and therefore it was not protected speech. In the 1970's wearing a tee shirt in a Los Angeles Court House, which stated "Fuck the draft" was ruled free speech.

The Supreme Court in the 70's referred to the right to speak openly of violent action and revolution in broad terms: [Our] decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not allow a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or cause such action.

Thus under this ruling very little that is said or written could be construed as not covered by protection of Free Speech under the First Amendment. Certainly, as tendentious as some of statements leading up to Tuscon might be considered, they are protected by the First Amendment. 

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has been consistent in returning to a strict constitutionalist position.  From Flag burning to unrestricted anonymous campaign finance all have been considered to fall within the ambit of free speech. Likewise laws of obscenity and defamation have far broader interpretations in US courts than they do in other countries.

So there can be scant hope that the solution to violent political rhetoric could be found in the courts.

THE MENTALLY HANDICAPPED AND GUN RESTRICTIONS

Ostensibly there is legislation out there that should restrict who is able to buy guns. The United States Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 44, Section 922: "Firearms, Unlawful Acts." current as of February 1, 2010 has the following restrictions in that if persons:

1. Were convicted of a crime punishable by being in prison for more than one year;
2. Are a fugitive from justice;
3. Are addicted to, or illegally use, any controlled substance;
4. Have been ruled mentally defective by a court, or are committed to a mental institution;
5. Are an illegal alien living in the United States unlawfully;
6. Received a dishonorable discharge from the U.S. Armed Forces;
7. Renounced your U.S. citizenship, if you are a U.S. citizen;
8. Are subject to a court restraining order that involves your 'intimate partner,' your partner's child, or children; or
9. Were convicted of domestic violence in any court of a misdemeanor.
All those who fall into the above categories should be exempted form being able to purchase a gun as a result of background checks. 
For practical purposes the problem relates to those who "have been ruled mentally defective by a court, or are committed to a mental institution". Other terminology includes those who have been "adjudicated to be mentally ill". The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) requires state and federal agencies to report all mentally challenged individuals who have been adjudicated as a “mental defective” or committed to a mental institution.” The immediate problem is that There is a wide discrepancy in background checking, reporting and record keeping from state to state and from gun shop to gun show. Add to this the unknown but extremely large number of unregistered and thus untraceable guns already out there in America; and the problem of controlling guns and who owns them is considerable.
Thus the screening objective has met many obstacles and for practical purposes is a failure. As evidence of this virtually every major incident points to perpetrators that should have been on the list but were not. In 2007 it was reported, according to one government estimate, that there were at least 2.7 million people in the United States who should be banned from owning firearms for mental health reasons. But there were only 235,000 names in the FBI's computer. 

In 2007, Virginia was one of the only 22 states that was reporting to the FBI, yet the Virginia Tech killer, who had been previously been determined to be a threat to society, obtained guns and reeked havoc. There is instance after instance of the mentally unstable doing likewise. In the Tuscon massacre, the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, was a known recluse and a rejected Army recruit due to drug use with a history of troubling behavior that he documented in rambling postings on his MySpace page, YouTube videos and classes he attended at Pima Community College in Tucson.” The University threw him out and felt they had no further responsibility other than to tell him he could only return if he had a mental clearance. No-one put him on the list! This is not that surprising as Arizona is woefully behind in entering the 121,700 records of disqualifying mental illness into NICS, having entered only 4, 465 between 2008 and 2010. In 2001a study showed that investigators using fake drivers licenses were all able to obtain guns.

Also the current gun laws do not define how to determine who is and who is not mentally ill. Applicants are asked on the current form whether they have been  adjudicated dangerously mentally ill!  The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) requires state and federal agencies to report all mentally challenged individuals who have been adjudicated as a “mental defective” or committed to a mental institution.” It is unsure what mental health records the State and Federal Agencies they may provide to the NICS. At gun shows private individuals are allowed to sell guns. These sellers are not legally bound to do background checks or even ask purchasers if they are eligible to buy a gun.

So for practical purposes the safeguards supposedly in place are just not working as evidenced too by the never ending succession of mass killings.

ANY SOLUTIONS?

There are 300 million people in America and it is estimated that there are over 300 million guns, of all types, in circulation. Over 50% of households have one or more guns. As shown there are, in addition, tremendously powerful belief, political,judicial and financial forces supporting the "right to bear arms". Two politicians in the forefront of gun reform have stated even in the wake of Tuscon no new gun law reform will be passed. 

When cities such as Washington DC and Chicago were legally able to ban handgun sales there was no impact on lowering homicides. If anything the data show otherwise.So any solution has to take into account the fact that guns are here to stay and just tinkering with the system as it is will not help. Also tinkering always creates partisan fights.

It is fair, however, to say that no-one wants mass killings and high homicide rates. The NRA condemned the recent senseless killings in Tuscon There is also consensus that mentally unstable citizens should not possess guns. The NRA supported this. This too is the intent of all the legislation on the books. So it would not  be revolutionary if we all worked towards everyones' objective.

It appears that what is needed is a method whereby this consensus, that only qualified and competent people can possess guns, can be put into effect. It is also obvious that in the current poisoned atmosphere of Congress that it is not going to happen there. One needs an authoritative bipartisan group led by out going respected politicians and members of the pro and anti gun lobbies in congress. Also representatives of involved groups such as the NRA and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence should be involved in the process. The solution is going to cost money - big money but Representative Henry Waxman states that the current lack of gun control costs the country a 100 billion dollars a year.

While a tremendous amount of work needs to be done let us look at a hypothetical solution. It is everyones right to drive a car subject to restrictions. The car is in unqualified and untrained hands a killing machine. Consequently every driver is subject to meeting a certain set of standards before being permitted to drive. Every car driver is registered and has to maintain his or her skills. Also if the drivers facilities such as eyesight deteriorate the right is removed. Why not the same standards for another killing machine - a firearm.

Every gun owner will need to obtain a license to use that gun. This will require the owner to exhibit competencies on using that gun safely. Who better than the current gun lobbies such as the NRA to set standards and train owners so they could obtain licenses. Those currently regarded as mentally unstable and who would qualify for the NICS list would need a psychiatrists letter to allow him or her to qualify. Training courses would also quickly identify some of the unstable. In most of the instances of these mass killings lay people had identified these people. One could go on and on with the details such as infrastructure but that is not the point.

Sooner or later something will be done but how many more mass killings is it going to take? How many more attacks on the integrity of the democratic process are needed?

THE TEA PARTY, THE NEW CONGRESS AND PALIN - ALL YOU EVER NEEDED TO KNOW

 INTRODUCTION

There is little argument that the Tea Party mobilized the Republican base and is largely responsible for the unprecedented Republican gains in the recent 2010 Mid – Term elections. Ron Christie, a former advisor to President Bush, acknowledges this and states that TIME MAGAZINE got it wrong when they made the Tea Party Voter runner up as the Person of the Year – the Tea Party voter should have been THE PERSON. While to some they may appear to be the lunatic fringe over 40% of the electorate view them favorably.

Who are this group, where did they come from, what do they stand for, what is their agenda and their power and influence? Also how on earth, in the space of a year, did a movement emerge that has so dominated the political discussion and agenda – ostensibly emerging from nowhere?

Whatever the answers to these questions are, the Tea Party is just not going to go away. The question also is what type of an impact are they going to have on the American Political Scene? Are they just a passing phenomenon or will they have a profound impact on the future? Are they going to take over the, GOP, blend with it, or go it alone?  For the immediate future, the GOP is beholden – they owe their massive Congressional majority to them. The Tea Party’s 40% favorability rating is the same as that of the GOP. Most of the Tea Party voters voted for the GOP and the question is where does their ultimate loyalty lie. So the GOP has to mind it’s P’s and Q’s and this has to impact on their stance and negotiating ability with the Democrats and the President.

GENESIS AND BROAD PHILOSOPHY

There is little doubt that the Tea Party arose in a time of great disillusionment of government and fiscal chaos with record Federal deficits. This was coupled with the Obama agendas of social change and introduction of regulatory, fiscal and social policies. Bailouts of the “fat cat” banks by Bush and Obama are generally credited for triggering their emergence. Then came other bailouts of everything, anything and everybody including banks, insurance companies, the car companies, the unemployed and “under water” house owners. All of this a total anathema to those to those who formed the Tea Party.

Someone had to pay for all for this and the Tea Party faithful were determined it wasn’t going to be them.

Although their members are mobilized under several organizations they have been represented as having one voice.  As a cardinal act of faith, they disapprove of Obama and all his policies. The Tea Party are explicitly populist, endorse curbs on government spending, are against “taxation without representation”, socially conservative and against subsidizing both individuals and institutions. They also believe in “less government” and “are sick and tired of the Federal Government controlling everything”. They also believe that as individual citizens, no – one is listening to them. They claim to be strict Constitutionalists but several have a desire to change the Constitution not to allow citizenship to those born in America of non - citizens. They have several out of mainstream policies such as a belief that President Obama was not born in America.

In practical political terms they have moved the Republican Party far to the right.

.

The Tea party’s Manifesto was the Contract From America. The GOP showered praise on its contents. The then House Minority Leader John Boehner maintained that it, “Captures the American people’s frustration with a government that has grown too big, too costly and too arrogant". The GOP then produced it’s own Pledge to America which observers maintained was barely distinguishable from the Tea Party’s Contract.

They have, however, to date shown themselves to be long on generalities and short on specifics. For example, one is unaware how they will cut spending.

ORGANIZATION

There are six main national organizations that loosely make up the Tea Party movement. These organizations are growing all the time. There are said to be several thousand local groups. The promoters have used the Internet with same skill and thoroughness as did Obama. They have a literature, e – mails, blogs, tweets, videos and endless rallies, - both local and national as well as conventions and meetings. There are estimated to be over quarter million active participants.

They have had two national rallies in Washington – one official and one unofficial. Both attracted hundreds of thousands of adherents. The first was held to protest what they perceive to be their Cri de Coeur, “no taxation without representation” and was symbolically held near April 15, 2010, the deadline for income tax submissions. Glen Beck, of Fox news, who has been their biggest media supporter, organized the second. The latter was entitled “Restoring Honor”. Beck and Palin were the two-featured speakers.

They held the first National Convention in Nashville in February in 2010 and once again Palin was the main speaker. Here an effort was made to obtain some cohesiveness of disparate groups. The agenda, that the really influential were aiming for, was the amalgamation of the social and fiscal conservatives.

Money does not appear to be a problem. Sarah Palin has had tours such as the “Tea Party Express" that raised money in town after town; Michelle Bachman raised $10,000,000 for a political action committee. It is strongly rumored that the Koch brothers have provided endless funds and there has been an admission of at least a $1,000,000 anonymous donation. With the Tea Party’s non-regulatory attitude to business coupled with the current lack of meaningful regulation for financial contributions, money is just not going to be a problem.

DEMOGRAPHICS 

Analyses have shown that the Tea Party members do not differ from the white demographic of voters. Polling has shown that they have more negative attitudes to Black people then a control group.  Dave Burghart and Leonard Zeskind and the Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights have done an exhaustive analysis of the membership of the Tea Party Movement and it’s progenitors. Some of the conclusions are that the Tea Party organizations have given platforms to anti – Semites, racists and bigots and have as a goal a more self conscious and ideological white supremacy. The Center for Responsive politics have shown that the Tea Party members received nearly $4,000 more in contributions from the Oil and Gas industry than a Republican congressman did and double those of a Democrat. ($12,000)

THE GOP AND TEA PARTY CAUCUS AND PALIN'S ROLE

While there are no elected leaders Sarah Palin has been in the forefront of the emergence of the Tea Party. She has been the rallying figure attending rally after rally. She committed herself from the word go and other than her there are not too many big names that have stuck their necks out to be part of the leadership. Dick Amey, past Republican House Leader and current Senator De Mint are the two other established Republican leader claims that he or she is a spokesperson.

Palin let the entire world know once again where she stood after being sharply criticized by Karl Rove, the number GOP one establishment member.  He had considered her reckless in her successful bid to get the unelectable O’Donnell the Republican Senate nomination in Delaware. The next morning on Fox, Palin dismissed Rove’s comments as the musings of "expert politicos." "Bless his heart," she said of Rove. "We love our friends there in the machine ... I say, Buck up” - unabashed paternalism addressed to the man who was, acknowledged as "Bush's Brain" both as Texas Governor and as the 43rd President.

The idea of a Tea Party Caucus was first mooted by then Senate Republican candidate for Kentucky, Rand Paul. It was established in July 2010. Representative Michelle Bachman of Minnesota is the head. Bachman is savvy and articulate and is also said to be considering a Presidential bid in 2012. The Caucus started off with 24 members and now has 52 with the new Congress. They cannot be ignored. At their suggestion the Republican Speaker Boehner has agreed to read the US Constitution every Thursday before the Congressional session opens. Boehner has also agreed to ensure that every piece of legislation produced in the House will be in sync with the Constitution.

STATUS, FUTURE ROLE AND DILEMNA OF TEA PARTY.

So it is pretty obvious that the Tea Party is not some type of a joke. On one level they represent a very powerful faction of the Republican Party with an impending threat to takeover the whole party. On another they may just end up to a passing phase on the political scene. To date, even though they all ran as Republicans, the Republican establishment has succeeded in distancing itself from them, while reaping all the benefits of their activities. This obviously cannot last. One has to realize that not only do they represent a distinct agenda but they also reflect the growing disillusionment and cynicism in the current Washington political scene. They mobilized in record time because of this disillusionment and the Internet provided the vehicle. This time round the Democrats have not produced a movement to capitalize on this sentiment. Obama was supposed to do that!

The Tea Party backers have made it clear that they are going to hold those, who were elected to their banner, accountable. Mark Meckler, who is head of the group, Tea Party Patriots, sent activists to visit lawmakers' offices hours after the swearing-in of the 112th Congress.

Meckler stated that, "It's a pointed reminder for the new class, roughly half of which was elected with "tea party" support or echoed the movement's call for smaller government. The goal is to keep the new members focused on the movement's priorities — slashing federal spending, opposing all tax increases, repealing the healthcare bill and adhering to its interpretation of the Constitution — and out of the clutches of Washington."

Now those lawmakers are standard-bearers of the tea party's hopes and ideals — a responsibility activists like Meckler plan to make sure is not set aside when the voting starts.

At the end of the day the Tea Party Congressmen have to adapt to the politics of power. Already they have adapted all to quickly, combining for over a billion dollar requests for “earmarks” – a procedure that allows members to tack onto existing bills money for their constituencies. This practice has long been the poster child for the corruption and nepotism of Washington politics. Chastened they have had to withdraw these requests. Also the GOP establishment controls the GOP infrastructure. They control the Committee Chairmanships, The Republican National Committee and have all the big business connections. In the business of real politick the Tea Party lost two important Chairmanships that they put candidates up for.

CONCLUSIONS

So the Tea Party, too, are between a rock and a hard place. Most importantly, they have to realize that the Tea Party message only resonates in certain constituencies. This was illustrated in the last election where their general anti establishment message was not enough to avoid the rejection of their political message and some Tea Party Republican candidates were unexpectedly defeated. Their most powerful tool is their ability to mobilize the Republican base. This they did in the last election to get their own candidates nominated and to bring the Republican base to the hustings resulting in this historic victory for the GOP.

If the Tea Party decides to go it alone they are destined to play a minor role in terms of real power. There is no future for a third party in US politics. Their best bet is to hang in with the Republican Party. They then can embarrass them to stick to Conservative values and not allow them to compromise. 

The upshot is that if no accommodation is reached with them they could wreak havoc in Republican Primaries. As the Tea Party are here to stay the most likely outcome will be that they will drag the Republican Party even further to the right. How this will all play out in the next congress when solutions are needed to resolve the financial crises and high unemployment numbers remains to be seen. At the end of the day the GOP needed the Tea Party like a hole in the head!  They could have got by with smaller gains in the mid-term elections.

How this will ultimately play out really depends on whether Sarah can win the Republican nomination for Presidency. Then all bets are off. One thing is for sure there won't be too many establishment figures backing her - a fact that she will be very quick to point out. This will serve to support her anti insider credentials a badge of honor that everyone wants to run on, it would appear. It got Obama the nomination over Hillary Clinton and then the Presidency over McCain. So Sarah will happily continue thumbing noses at the icons of the Republican Party, whether it is the matriarch, Barbara Bush or the brains, Karl Rove.

OBAMA - WHAT THE LAME DUCK CONGRESS REALLY MEANT

It looked like it was all over bar the shouting - the Democrats had received, in the November elections, by the President's own admission, a "shellacking". Not only had they lost the House of Representatives but had also lost 6 seats in the Senate, where for practical purposes they needed 60 of the 100 votes to pass any legislation. They had had great difficulty in mustering this number with 59 Senators in their caucus and now they had 53. It appeared that the traditional "lame duck" Congressional session, that is held in November and December, would be one big yawn. The latter session is held with the "old" congress members and traditionally is very unproductive. The demoralized Democrats had a long list of legislation to pass. Legislation that the Republicans had blocked over the past two years. The cock of the hoop Republicans stated objective was to "run out the clock" and deny the Obama administration any "successes" with his agenda. They were now one step further in denying him a second term.

ROUND ONE.


The number one priority of the Obama administration was the passage of the tax bill. Obama and the Democrats had campaigned on this issue in the "shellacking" election. There they supported no extension of the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% earning over $250,000. Now there could  be no way that this bill could obtain 60 votes in this new environment as it couldn't before. Then Obama, to the Democrats chagrin, did a deal with the Republicans, inter alia, backing down on the tax increase for the rich. (See blog - Obama - From Yes We Can To Yes We Cave,)  The tax bill that the Republicans had wanted from the get go was now the Administration's policy and subsequently passed with enthusiastic  majority Republican support. The Democratic leader of the House of Representatives and outgoing Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, epitomized Democratic disgust by boycotting the signing of the Bill into law. It appeared that not only would the Democratic agenda not be fulfilled the Republican one was prematurely on it's way.


THE NEXT ROUNDS.


It was in this context that Harry Reid, the Democratic leader of the Senate faced the rest of the lame duck session. Reid had to be exhausted as he had come from nowhere to retain his seat in Nevada where the GOP, Sarah Palin and her candidate had gone full blast to beat him. He was now sitting on a string of legislation that was considered essential to the Obama agenda. The latter had been lingering in the Senate for up to two years unable to overcome the Republican threat of a fillibuster. It would need all the parliamentary and persuasive skills to get bills that couldn't pass in two years passed in less than two months. The irony was that, notwithstanding the Republican success in the elections, most of the issues in these Bills were supported by the electorate.

The Republican leadership, flushed with their success in the wake of the Obama tax cave, made it quite clear that no other legislation would see the light of day as "there was no time to seriously consider all the issues in this short period of time", "that it was sacrilegious to deny the legislature their opportunity to spend the Christmas holidays with their families", "that it would be against the will of the electorate to enact the Democratic agenda after the shellacking", "that with all this legislation coming at them in such a short time they couldn't really properly consider it", etc etc.


What the Republican leadership had not counted on was the disaffection of rank and file Republican Senators. Up till now they had held tight ranks. The latter, however, had obviously been closer to the ground in the election. The central issue was more like, "throw the bums out" and as there were more Democratic bums to throw out the Republicans had "triumphed". The public discontent was largely fueled by the dead economy and unemployment rather than social and international issues


DON'T ASK DON'T TELL.


On the face of it the issue of gays serving openly in the Military was pretty well decided. The issue had jumped through all the hoops needed for acceptance. There had been extensive review and polling in every section of the military. All the military and their brass were pro as well as the Secretary of Defense, a Republican. The polls were for it. Legal challenges in favour of it had been successful - one litigated by the gay Republican party group! However, the Republicans stuck to their mantra - that the election results had shown otherwise and John McCain, in one of his many about faces, needed more and more Senate hearings.

However, endless public displays of the Generals and public opinion polls began to make the Republican argument appear ridiculous. Also the Conservative base of the Republican party were not that vocal in their opposition. So a few Republican Senators defied the leadership and switched and the Democrats received their first flush of victory.

THE START TREATY WITH RUSSIA


This nuclear reduction and inspection treaty was the acknowledged key foreign policy issue of the Obama administration This too had also been repeatedly rejected by the Republicans. This hurdle was even greater for Reid as he needed 67 votes to ratify a Treaty. No Democratic President had ever achieved this in the post war period. Obama desperately needed this ratification for his credibility as a world leader. The Russians had already stated that they could not trust the Americans if this treaty was "rejected". The Republican leadership were as confident as they were adamant about this one. There were plenty of rationalizations as to why it should not be passed. If it wasn't passed Obama would look weak and unpresidential and it was after all the Republican leaders top agenda item to deny him a second term.

Once again everybody who was anybody was rolled out to show support for this treaty. This included every living Secretary of State from Kissinger onwards. Colin Powell and others all argued that it would be a disaster for American foreign policy if this Treaty was not ratified by the US. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which includes several Republicans, had heard credible evidence on numerous occasions as to why this Treaty was crucial. So once again the Republican rank and file defied their leadership and Reid garnered 71 votes this time.

THE 9/11 HEALTH CARE BILL.


This Bill dealt with the bizarre situation where the 9/11 first responders'  health care needs were not being met. This included thousands of firemen, policemen and the like.  This circumstance had come about as a result of the dysfunctional health care system. This results in the severely ill heroes  caught in between, workman compensation,insurance, private health care insurance and public insurance agencies and their failure to meet the specialized needs of this group.  The upshot was that severe respiratory conditions, post traumatic stress disorders and cancer treatments were not being funded. This Bill had received short shrift form the Republicans at the beginning of the lame duck session and was unceremoniously blocked from debate. The ostensible reason being the cost. The Bill had been around for years and had originally been introduced by Hillary Clinton when she was in the Senate.

Unlike the other issues the media had virtually ignored it and it was not in the forefront of the public psyche. Reid did not think it was worthwhile using up more precious time on it. Parliamentary procedure is ponderous and takes forever. He also had financial bills to pass to keep the government running.

So the issue was dead until Jon Stewart elected to feature the parlous situation these workers found themselves in, some who even were not getting cancer treatment. (See Blog - John Stewart and Sanity.) He featured the issue in two consecutive programs. He castigated everyone from the Congress to the Media. He berated Fox News, the flagbearer of the Republicans,  who regularly feature the significance of 9/11. The upshot was that every Senator had their phones ringing off the hook to revisit the issue and suddenly it became alive again. A compromise was reached on cost and the Bill was passed without opposition!


OBAMA, THE GOP, THE LAME DUCK SESSION AND THE FUTURE.


Obama has obviously claimed victory for his agenda although he was not out on the stump for any of this. After his deal on taxes he was mum. In addition to all of the above a Food Safety Bill and a Government Funding Bill for three months were passed. Obama has not been credited by the Democratic pundits at all.   Obama is hailing this as a triumph for bipartisanship and maintaining that "We are not doomed to endless gridlock". Again this is not gaining too much traction amongst the Democratic pundits and if credit is being dished out it is to Reid and Pelosi. In fact Reid's role is being even acknowledged by influential Republican Senator Bob Graham who says that Reid "ate the Republicans' lunch."

One thing for certain is that this lame duck session has done Obama no harm. The highly respected CNN commentator, David Gergen, who has advised several Presidents, including Nixon, Ford, Reagan and even Clinton, has hailed these legislative outcomes as "a string of victories" for Obama . Gergen believes that these "victories" have significantly improved Obama's hand maintaining that he has bounced back even more quickly than Bill Clinton after his reverses in mid first term elections.  In support of his view, Gergen maintains - "From my biased perspective, I also thought that the president was more effective because he seemingly played these fights from the background rather than the foreground. We heared about him each day making phone calls, bringing in votes, but we didn't see him consistently on the  podium. It worked!" 

This does seem odd logic, namely, that Obama has more pull in the Republican caucus than the Republican leadership  has and the best way for him to succeed is to keep quiet in public. More likely is that the electorate are sick and tired of the politicians being purely party political on these specific issues and to a lesser or greater extent, the Senate Republican rank and file "got it".  However from the public perspective Obama's tax move also did him no harm. In a CNN opinion poll 59% of respondents maintained that Obama was doing enough to cooperate with the Republicans in Congress.

THE NEXT TWO YEARS.

It is going to be a very interesting two years. The Republican leadership must have learned that they just can't run on being anti - Obama.  Also there is going to be a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican party. What will be the response of Sarah Palin to these "sell outs" in the next Republican primaries? Up to now her biggest successes have been in the Primary Republican elections where she has attempted to purge the party of the compromisers. The Conservative Tea Party that was started as a result of governmental excesses and bail out money still has a 43% favorable rating. Their influence is being acknowledged by new House Speaker Boehner who has decreed that the American Constitution will be read every second day in the house!

Watch Michael Huckabee who is a "softer gentler" Conservative Republican. He could well emerge as Sarah Palin's only serious rival. His conservative credentials are impeccable. He politely continued opposing McCain in the 2008 Primaries till the latter obtained the required number of electoral votes to be the Republican nominee, thereby giving him continued public exposure. He too, like Sarah, has his own Fox News show giving him access to the Republican electorate.  He publically differed with Palin on one of her indefensible rants against Michelle Obama and he was on the Jon Stewart show that led to the recanting of the the 9/11 Responders Health Care Bill. He agreed with Stewart and the next day Fox News were on sides.  He is also playing it really cool saying that Palin is the odds on favourite to win the Republican nomination.

THE REAL FIGHT AND IT'S OUTCOME

Also how is the economy going to play out? Obama's fate hangs largely on that. What legislation is the Republican House of Representatives going to present to the still Democratically controlled Senate? The dispute is going to be about economic philosophies and how the present economic mess is to be resolved. The Lame Duck session Democratic victories have nothing to do with these realities.  In fact the tax bill was the Republican version and the Government spending Bill was significantly pruned. This is where the real fight is going to take place. Even Obama's Health Reform legislation is in jeopardy if funding is blocked.

The bottom line is where is the money going to come from to get this consumer economy going and cut back the debt? The Republicans are not interested in taxing the rich who are earning the greatest proportion of money since the Great Depression - the top 1% earning 23% of money. The Democrats are loath to cut back on programs that largely affect the middle class and poor. The claim that "big money" is more in control of the agenda then ever before doesn't help solve the problem. There is, however a bipartisan Presidential panel that has looked at this problem realistically and has made recommendations.

At the end of the day the outcome of this issue will determine the Obama legacy and even whether he will have a second term or not. Franklin Roosevelt would not have been able to dominate the international and the local scene with the Great Society had he not turned the economy. What would Reagan's legacy be without Reagonomics? To effect this impact Obama is going to have to get into the mix - phone calls behind the scene just won't cut it. He will have to present legislation and fight for it and then compromise on the basis of political reality rather than have an agenda and stick around and hope that Congress will enact legislation to meet it. His actions will decide whether his remarkable activist, intellectual, organizational and oratorial skills will be translated into a transformational period in American history.

BISHOP TUTU AND THE JEWISH PROBLEM

ANTI - APARTHEID AND HUMAN RIGHTS ICON

Archbishop Desmond Tutu is synonymous with fearless anti - apartheid opposition, the overturn of the apartheid regime and setting the "new" South Africa on a non violent road. Nor has he been reluctant, in the post apartheid era to criticize the new regime and continue his crusade for justice. He is up there with icons such as Mandela and Albert Luthuli, fellow South African nobel peace laureates, as the standard bearers for decency, forgiveness and love of fellow human beings in their fight for equality. His religious mantle has lent further credibility to his seemingly never ending crusade for equality and humanity. It is fair to argue that his role as Chairman of the controversial "Truth and Conciliation Commission", that  chronicled and sometimes pardoned the most egregious of apartheid's perpetrators of crimes against humanity, was partially responsible to bringing closure for many. By so doing he contributed much to defuse the post apartheid anger thereby allowing the new South Africa to move forward peacefully.


TUTU THE ANTI - SEMITE ?

How does one equate this with the argument that he is a longstanding unashamed anti-semite? This claim has been doing the rounds in some form or another for years even in the years of the "struggle". Understandably this type of smear was ignored by the main media. What was initially regarded as slander, undue paranoia and at best "sensitivity to any criticism of Israel or Zionism" has now reached a high level of credibility. What finally led to the public airing of this issue was Tutu's public virulent opposition to the Cape Town Opera Group's performing Porgy and Bess in Tel Aviv. This was followed up by demands for a total cultural boycott of Israel, it's academics and businesses.

There are petitions out in South Africa to have Tutu removed as patron of the two Holocaust Museums and the newspaper letter columns are awash with the controversy. Alan Dershowitz, the famed lawyer and author, has slammed Tutu both in articles and at a Conference on Racism in Geneva in April 2010, calling Tutu a racist and a bigot. Resurfacing again is The University of Minnesota's retraction, in 2007, of an invitation to speak as his past criticisms of Israel veered on anti - semitism.

Also this opened the floodgates of previous statements attributed to him that cannot even be argued to be "merely" anti Zionist or anti Israeli but are blatantly anti - semitic. Statements such as, "Whether Jews like it or not, they are peculiar people. They cannot ever hope to be judged by the same standards which are used for other people", and ".. the arrogance of power because Jews are a powerful lobby and scary in this land, (America),...", are nothing but old fashioned  anti - semitic stereotypes. His response to all these allegations, according to Dershowitz is, "Tough Luck and my Dentist's name is Dr. Cohen". Some of my best friends are..... .

In addition there are endless statements on the holocaust that are attributed to him that are not far off those of Ahmadinejad. It is no wonder that his bald statement that Israel is as bad as South Africa has not had too much traction. It is difficult to take him seriously in the context of his documented anti -  semitism and circles that genuinely believe that Israel are not exactly blameless must find him an embarrassment to their cause.


 TUTU, MANDELA, THE SOUTH AFRICAN JEWS AND THE STRUGGLE


A real irony is the difference in Mandela's attitude towards the Jews. While not compromising his belief that Arafat deserved his support - to the chagrin of many - he has acknowledged again and again the disproportionate role, in terms of numbers, that those who were regarded as Jews, played in the fight against apartheid. One of his first speaking engagements following his release from prison was at the Sea Point Synagogue in Cape Town. Here he recalled the fact that only a jewish lawyer would employ him as an apprentice lawyer,  his white brothers in the struggle were disproportionally jewish, several of his pro bono lawyers were jews and the ongoing presence and activism of jews, on so many levels, throughout the apartheid years.

So as a South African born jew and as a citizen of the world, Tutu's anti semitism sticks in the crawl. I find it impossible to reconcile all this on an intellectual and emotional level. Dershowitz calls him a jew hater - this man who has preached tolerance, forgiveness and love.  He calls for forgiveness of the Holocaust perpetrators and all the perpetrators of current atrocities so the only group who appear to be beyond redemption are the jews.  If Tutu was speaking this way of any group, religion, race or nation his prejudice would be unfathomable. He has dedicated his life to fight prejudice and bigotry yet, it appears, that this has been pursued, in a background of bigotry.

At the end of the day, in the grand scheme of politics, Tutu carries very little weight. His belief that he can effect a boycott of Israel is pie in the sky. But he is a role model to many and with the flare up of anti - semitism, particularly in Europe, he lends some respectability and can add fuel to the fire.

 On a personal level it is sad to see one of one's heros exposed as a hypocrite. The personal sense of loss is profound.

OBAMA - FROM " YES WE CAN" TO "YES WE CAVE"

FROM YES WE CAN TO YES WE CAVE

As each day passes President Obama's stocks precipitously drop. For someone, who two years ago was not only America's last hope, but the world's, the Nobel Peace Laureate's fall is mind boggling. This critique may appear harsh as, after all, he has made historic legislative breakthroughs in health care and financial reform. But was that his work or that of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and the Congressional Democrats who had the courage of his convictions?

Throughout his term he has shown a disinclination for getting involved in the "nitty gritty" mix of political horse trading. It was as if he really believed the hype that was being written about him that he was the statesman that could bridge the gap between all groups on all stages. On the American stage he seemed desperate to "cooperate" with the Republicans. His campaign slogan that, "There are no Red States, there are no Blue states just the United States" seems to have become his overriding priority rather than all the other domestic issues he ran on.

The discontent against his modus operandi has been simmering for some time. James Carville, the arch Democratic lobyist, not so long ago, bluntly said that if Obama had one of Hilary Clinton's balls he would then have two! Not only has not won over the Republicans but he is loosing the Democratic base that elected him. He already has lost the Independents and youth that took him over the hill to beat Hillary Clinton in the primaries and John McCain in the Presidential election.

THE FINAL NAIL AND REALITY

The "compromise", that has finally let all hell break loose, is Obama's support for the continued income tax break for those earning more than $250,000 a year in return for continuing tax breaks for those earning less, (not really a compromise as it would take the most cynical to argue that tax breaks should only be for the high earners). In addition the Republicans would agree to a 13 month extension of unemployment benefits for the 2 year unemployed.

These issues have really no traction with the electorate. Well over 50%, notwithstanding Obama's low poll numbers, do not support these policies. It is fair to say that the democratic media and base are unsympathetic to his argument that this was the best compromise possible and he was saving the embattled middle class by compromising with the "hostage takers". They wanted him to fight tooth and nail. The prevailing mantra is, "Let the Republicans be seen to be taking tax breaks away from lower income Americans and not funding the unemployed". Stare them out - don't cave.

The lame duck Democratic House Majority once again passed a motion restricting tax cuts only to those earning less than $250,000 signaling exactly what they felt and what the Democratic position should be. The cry of the Democrats is that the Republicans have procedurally stalled every bit of legislation by the Democratic majority and there is no reason to cave into them just because they won the House of Representatives. Obama ignored this not so subtle hint as to the way he should go.

To add insult to injury this compromise was preceded by Obama unilaterally declaring a pay freeze to all Federal employees. This to the joy of the Republicans and the anger of the Unions for he received nothing in return from the Republicans.

THE COMPROMISE ISSUE

The tax issue and compromise is symbolic of the philosophical differences between the two parties and the way they caricature each other.

To the Democrats it epitomizes the fat cat uncaring Republicans and their focus on the wealthy. The Dems believe that this is all based on the myth of "trickle down" economics. To the Republicans, the Democrats are exhibiting their "tax and spend" philosophy. Furthermore, the Republicans believe that the Democrats are creating a welfare society with more an more entitlement programs.

However it is the Democrats that are up in arms about this compromise. The Republicans are hailing it is true bipartisanship. These "Bush" tax cuts are a highly sensitive issue and were only voted in as a result of Dick Cheney, using his prerogative as Vice President, to break a tie vote in the senate. The Democrats have maintained that this 2% of the American citizenry will increase the deficit by 7 trillion dollars. They also maintain that the Republican argument that it is these tax payers who will produce the jobs for the economic recovery is not supported by the facts as they, to date, have not.

WHITHER OBAMA

What has produced this disconnect between the expectations of Obama and his performance? The growing swell of "draft Hillary and I told you so supporters" believe they have the answers. Obama has had no experience in the hurly burly of political infighting. He has a need to be loved and accepted by all. Most of all he has a need to show that he is a true blue American that can unite this country. He does not understand the way it all works or alternatively he really believes that he can change it all by remaining above the fray and be the great conciliator.  It is apparent that he has not made the transition from an articulate campaigning activist to a player in power politics.

The irony is the Republicans continually bate Obama by saying he is no Bill Clinton who "really understood bipartisanship". This is the same Bill Clinton whom Newt Gingridge, the Republican Speaker of the House, ruefully maintained that Clinton was persuasive, persistent and very difficult to refuse. The same Bill Clinton whom, in spite of his "bipartisanship" the Republicans tried to impeach when he had a 70% approval rating.

The message the Democrats want to send to Obama is to let history look after itself and to stand on the  principles he ran on. There is little doubt that he is facing a Democratic revolt over this deal. The only question is it's extent.

Obama is making it harder and harder to get reelected. George Bush, the elder, never got past his decision to raise taxes. He reneged on his campaign promise "Read my lips - no new taxes" and had to face ad after ad where his volte - face was replayed.

The Republican Senate leader, Mitch McConnell, has unashamedly maintained that the top Republican priority is to limit Obama to one term. They want him to carry on just as he is. He can have their love every time he caves in and they will even say, once he is gone, that he was better than Jimmy Carter.

THE GOP, THE PRESIDENCY AND SARAH PALIN

Sarah Palin, the poster child for the Republican Party's revival after Obama's sweep in 2008, is producing a massive headache for the party leaders. She is the one person who presently stands in the way of Obama being a one term President. Nowhere was this made clearer when Barbara Bush, wife of the GOP godfather, 41st President, George Herbert Walker Bush, stated for all the world to hear on Larry King Live, that she was "beautiful and should stay in Alaska".

SARAH THE PHENOM

Sarah Palin, who has become a public relations phenom, has no such intention. The best she could do  was to return to Alaska to do an 8 part reality TV series where we see Sarah en famille, hunting, fishing and shooting - wild life as well as words of wisdom to the world. Sarah, may I call her Sarah - everyone else does, has become the most marketable commodity in the USA. Her most recent book received a 4 and a half million dollar advance and her speaking engagements "honoraria" are up there with ex presidents. She has done Fox ratings no harm and between her and her publicity hungry family she is daily in the headlines.

What is it with this lady who exudes charisma? She was given a massive start by John McCain, who in a Hail Mary attempt to win the Presidency in 2008, made her his Vice Presidential pick. In no time she let it be known that she is not just a pretty face. She is fiercely independent, has views on everything, she is street smart and most importantly has caught the mood of public discontent with her de facto leadership of the Tea Party movement.  That more than anything else is what has propelled her to the forefront of the political scene in the US.

On a personal level she is unashamedly feminine. Everything around her personal life just hangs out. Her  daughter's out of wedlock child, her decision to give birth to her Down Syndrome child, her man who stands by his woman and all the family problems are there, uncensored for all the world and it's cameras to see. All of this "homeliness", seemingly, adding to her appeal.

In the 2010 midterm elections she endorsed candidates left right and center, (just right politically though). Most significantly she had her greatest success with the Republican Primaries. She ousted many establishment candidates who she considered too moderate. Her success in the General Election with her chosen candidates was mixed however. Some of these candidates that emerged from the Republican Primaries, were objectively, off the wall, in main stream politics. This lead the influential Republican Congressman Bachus to tell the Chamber of Commerce that Palin cost the GOP the senate. Others have argued however that she was the rallying point that won the GOP the house and brought out the base.


SARAH, THE GOP AND THE PRESIDENCY

One thing for certain is that she will not go away. No-one more than her has honed the attributes of entertainment and politics that is so uniquely American and that has proved such a recipe for political success. She is show business personified. Mix that with a broad popular appeal, her ability to put her pulse on "grievances" and skill at being the populist  - she ousted the "establishment"  Republican Governor in the Alaskan Primary at the outset and ever since then has retained the populist image.

From a GOP point of view she controls the base. She is leaving no room for maneuver and that coupled with name recognition makes her the odds on favourite to win the GOP nomination for the Presidency. If the establishment turns against her they run the risk of splitting the GOP

Her problem, of course, is her manifest ignorance and her perceived prejudices. She shoots from the hip. Rather than say she doesn't know she will give an answer. She is scary but that will not scare away her base, who believes as she does, that her "slips of the tongue" and her "down to earthiness", (a euphemism for ignorance), are blown out of proportion by the liberal media. They believe as she does, for example, when referring to her advocating the backing of "our North Korean allies":


"It seems they couldn't resist the temptation to turn a simple one word slip-of-the-tongue of mine into a major political headline," Palin wrote. "The one word slip occurred yesterday during one of my seven back-to-back interviews wherein I was privileged to speak to the American public about the important, world-changing issues before us."

 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WINNING AND LOOSING USA ELECTIONS AND SARAH

American elections are really decided by a tiny swing vote - assuming the bases of both parties have delivered. (The latter is not an assumption that always can be taken for granted. It can be in the case of Sarah.) The moderate independents whole sway. They put Obama in power and are currently trending against him. No poll shows Obama with near a 50% approval rating. There is only one poll result that can give Obama any cheer and that is the  8% - 12% lead he has over Palin in a head to head Presidency run off.

America, as we all know, is permanently in "status electionius". The Presidential Primaries start in 13 months time. (A fact not lost on Sarah's choice of venues for her book promotion tour).  Much can change on the political and economic fronts that may influence the Congress elections. Nothing, however, will change on the Sarah story and therefore the Presidential race. She will run for President. She will win the Republican nomination. What remains to be seen is whether or not the Republican Party hierachy will support her.  I think not. They have to hope that someone will emerge from the shadows to beat her because it is hard to see front runners Huckabee or Romney do it. Again, I think no one can. Her publicity machine rolls on and no-one can catch her up.

The impact of all of this on the GOP's Presidential ambitions can be humongous. It is fair to say that the GOP cherish the Presidency more than they do Congress. At the moment their key strategy as is Sarah's is just anti Obama. Sarah and her Tea Party are a double edge sword that have the potential to untopple their greatest ambition. She can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory - and allow an indecisive, unpopular President in bad economic times to be re-elected.