The Daily Detour

A missed opportunity for Republicans in Indiana

In talking with one of our TDD readers last night about the fallout from Evan Bayh's surprise retirement announcement, I mentioned the candidacy of Tamyra d'Ippolito. Tamyra who? A political newcomer who owns a cafe in Bloomington. An article in yesterday's Indianapolis Star pointed out that she had hoped to challenge Bayh in the Democratic primary, but was having difficulty securing the 4,500 signatures necessary (500 from each of the 9 congressional districts here in Indiana) to be put on the ballot. She needed about 1,000 additional signatures by noon yesterday to get on the ballot.

Ms. d'Ippolito expressed discouragement at not getting any support from the Democratic county chairmen, which unfortunately, is the nature of the political beast. Gone are the days of enthusiasm and a passion for public service as the requirements for participation in the political process. They have been replaced by power, expediency, and back-scratching, orchestrated by the gatekeepers of the political establishment.

As I shared with my friend last night, if the Republicans had been smarter, they would have rallied to Ms. d'Ippolito's cause and helped her get on the ballot. Because with an actual candidate on the ballot the Indiana Democrats would have been in an even bigger bind then they're in now. Instead of the small group of Democratic Party insiders determining who the candidate would be, they would be forced to contend with a candidate would most assuredly get beaten in November.

Either way, the Democratic establishment is reeling from the announcement of Bayh on Monday. For many people, he was the leader of the Party in Indiana and now they are battling the storms with a rudderless ship.

UPDATE: Eric Erickson over at the Red State blog had the same idea.

The political landscape is rumbling...

And now it is hitting the Hoosier state with today's totally unexpected retirement announcement from Sen. Evan Bayh. Just a year and a half ago, Sen. Bayh was on the very short list to be President Obama's vice presidential running mate, and now he's on his way out of politics.

The upcoming Senate race here in Indiana has become quite a roller-coaster in recent weeks, as the candidates began lining up to challenge Bayh, who as all but assured a relection to the seat that he has held since the late 90's. But then former Republican Sen. Dan Coats announced his decision to enter the race, and the political stakes shifted. (In fact, it was the retirement of Sen. Coats in 1998 that opened the door for Bayh to become the junior senator for Indiana and further his political aspirations.)

How quickly things change... The political landscape here in Indiana is symptomatic of what is happening all across the country. From the governor's races in Virginia and New Jersey to the huge upset in Massachussetts with the seat held by Ted Kennedy being passed to Republican newcomer Scott Brown, there are seismic shifts happening in the unlikeliest of places throughout the country. And while the Republicans are seeing encouraging signs of things to come, the Democratics are scrambling to figure out what went wrong.

For it was just over a year ago, that the new age of hope and change was being ushered in on the rhetoric and promise of the coming savior of the country. The presidency and both houses of Congress were firmly in Democrats' hands (with even a filibuster-proof Super Majority in the Senate). The era of possibility was only limited to one's imagination.

And now, this...

What are the reasons? Is it still because of the lingering effects of Bush? Is it because of the Tea Party movement? Is it because of Obama's less-than-stellar first year in office? Is it his aggressive attempt to grow the government and increase federal spending? Is it all of the above, and more?

The pundits will continue to speculate and analyze every nuance of the shifting sands, but the bottom line is, things are not looking good for Obama & Co.

And for those of us love to strap into the ongoing political roller-coaster, it's going to be a fun ride. :) You never know what's coming around the next bend. I mean, Bayh retiring, who saw that coming? (Not even his staff apparently.)

UPDATE: President Obama and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, tried to convince Bayh to stay...to no avail.

Captain America vs. the Tea Parties

Marvel Comics has issued an apology for their derogatory depiction of the tea party crowd in recent Captain America issue #602 comic book. Since World War II, Captain America has been standing firmly against evils in the world. And now, it seems like the self-proclaimed Tea Party patriots are the target of his condemnation. To put the Tea Partiers in the same league as the Nazis (in the 40's), flag-burners (in the 60's) and now white supremacists (with whom the Tea Party protesters were associated). Should we be surprised? Hardly.

C'mon, Capt. America, really? How far we've come...

Tim Tebow in the Super Bowl

Football phenom Tim Tebow is going to be in the Super Bowl...in the broadcast at least. Perhaps you've heard about the growing controversy surrounding an upcoming commercial which alludes to the story of Tim, and more specifically, the decision his mother made to not abort him when she was young and pregnant. The sponsoring organization, Focus on the Family, has said they put the commercial together to let families and parents who are at wit's end know that there is help and hope.

I'm hearing more and more about this commercial by Tebow, so I finally decided to go and look at it on YouTube. Only, I couldn't find it. Why? Because it's not there.

That is what is especially puzzling and surprising about the mounting volume of criticism that is being thrown about by everybody from the National Organization of (some) Women to everyone's favorite pundits on The View. No one else has seen the commercial either. It's like writing review of a movie without actually having watched it.

All of the critics are up in arms for what they think the commercial is going to promote. And even if it does suggest a pro-life message, is there something wrong with that? I was under the impression that this is a free country with the ability to express perspectives that others might not always agree with. So much for being tolerant.

I guess we can watch the Super Bowl and actually see what all the hubbub is all about. 

UPDATE: That's what the fuss was all about?!? Talk about anti-climactic... That is the inevitable problem with presumptive criticism. There is always the possibility of ending up with egg on the face. Of course, all of the critics would never go so far as to admit their missteps. I went over to Focus on the Family's website to watch "the rest of the story" about Tebow. That extended interview with Tim Tebow's parents certainly presents a strong pro-life message. But the Super Bowl commercial was nothing to write home about. And if we start suggesting that any of the TV networks not run commercials from message-driven organizations, where does it stop? There would be very little advertising left. Ironically, the critics did more to draw attention to this issue by vocalizing their criticisms. If they hadn't said a thing, FOTF's website wouldn't be getting nearly the hits.

I'd be crying too

Sorry for the longer absences here on the blog. I've been under the gun in trying to get the Sagamore leadership organization up and running (including the development of our website), and regular contributions to the blog are currently getting squeezed out. I did want to at least pass along this recent cartoon from Gary Varvel, satirizing the projected $3.8 trillion projected budget that President Obama is submitting to Congress. The deficit spending alone is enough to make us all cry, that is, if our outrage hasn't already begun to atrophy. (As they say, a trillion here, a trillion there...pretty soon we're talking about real money.)

The reckoning of the citizenry

On his radio broadcast today, Dennis Miller was talking with a Democratic congressman about the current state of our union, in anticipation of President Obama's State of the Union address tonight. After the congressman gave his "government-is-the-answer" assessment, Miller politely thanked him for his time and suggested that they would have to agree to disagree.

After their conversation Dennis Miller went on to say that if Congress doesn't do something dramatic to turn things around there is going to be a reckoning from the American people. Or, as he put it, the American people are going to cut through them like a scythe through Slim Jims come November. That's one of the reasons why I like Miller. His creative, spur-of-the-moment analogies are typically spot on. :) 

TDD Poll: Arlen Specter, sexist or not?

It's been a while since I've put a TDD poll out to the audience, but this most recent exchange between Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Penn.) and his congressional colleague Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) begs for feedback. The two of them were being interviewed on 1210 AM's Dom Giordano Show in Philadelphia Wednesday morning. During the course of the interview, Sen. Specter got more than a bit testy to the point of telling Rep. Bachmann twice to "act like a lady."

Real Clear Politics has the audio of that portion of the radio show.

Now, here's the TDD question, "What did you think of this exchange between Specter and Bachmann?" Were his remarks out of line? Did she deserve reprimand? What's your take?

Because this exchange comes in a specifically political context, the tendency may be to allow our political beliefs to influence our assessment. Regardless of your political persuasions, I'd like to hear from any of you (especially the females in our readership) as to what you thought of this specific exchange. (In a follow-up interview, Bachmann said she believes this will be the end of Specter in Pennsylvania. What do you think?) 

UPDATE: Sean Hannity sought a comment from Arlen Specter's office, but got no response. Here is Hannity's interview with Rep. Bachmann about the exchange.

The Boston Massacre

And on Obama's 1-year anniversary no less. Ouch! and double-Ouch! The Democrats worst nightmare became a reality last night, as Republican Scott Brown soundly defeated Democrat Martha Coakley, 52-47%. He is now the Senator-elect in a Senate seat that has been in Democratic hands since 1953 (and in Ted Kennedy's hands since 1962).

The Democrat political world has been thrown off of its axis, with Dems scrambling to figure out "Who is Scott Brown?" and "How did this happen?" For as every Democrat across the country has come to realize that if the GOP can take Kennedy's seat, then every seat is in play in the mid-term election which will be coming in just over 10 months from now. No one is safe, which is why certain Democrat politicians didn't wait very long to begin trying to distance themselves from Obama's agenda in order to salvage their own political skin. In fact, as one of the media talking heads suggested, the question is, "Will it be better for them to vote for the healthcare bill, or better to vote against it?" Given the fact that Scott Brown specifically campaigned on the promise of being the 41st vote needed to halt the healthcare bill, it seems the answer is obvious.

Media pundit David Gergen acknowledged that Brown's victory effectively nailed the coffin shut on the healthcare legislation, but he also went further to suggest that it will essentially seal the fate of Obama's other iniatives as well. If so, Obama will struggle to have anything solid to show for his first year in office.

Obama has already begun to feel the backlash from the American people as his poll numbers continue to drop. And though he wants to try to shuffle the blame onto to predecessor, the American people aren't buying it anymore. On this first anniversary of his presidency, the bloom is off the rose. And the "hope and change" message is being recognized for the cotton candy it is--sweet and sugary on the outside with no real substance in the middle. American's aren't happy with the direction the country is headed and have begun figuring out ways to let their voices be heard. One of the biggest ways was to elect Brown as the new man in the blue state of Massachussetts. If 'ole Teddy could see it now... 

Healthcare hanging in the balance of the Bay State

Perhaps hidden among the rubble of the Haitian earthquake is a different kind of potentially earth-shattering upset in Massachussetts. Today is the special election between Democrat candidate Martha Coakley and Republican challenger Scott Brown. They are battling to see who will fill the seat held by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy.

Massachussetts has become as blue as it comes with the Kennedy dynasty firmly established there for generations. Which is why, until just recently, the victory of Martha Coakley was all but assumed. Not so anymore. Scott Brown gave a strong performance in the final debate and was closing the gap in the polls. He has since passed Coakley in the polls, and at last count was ahead of her by 5 points, 51-46%.

Why is this particular special election so significant? Because this election is about more than just Coakley or Brown. For many, it is being seen as a kind of referendum on what is happening on the healthcare debate that has been taking place in Congress over the past few months. President Obama's signature issue was moving through the legislative process (often being pushed through at times by the Democrat majority). And if Coakley wins, then the Senate majority stands at 60 seats, which further ensures that it is filibuster-proof, and the process continues at a steady rate.

If, on the other hand, Scott Brown pulls an upset and takes the seat, the Republicans would have just enough votes to further stymie what more and more people see as a piece of bad legislation.

The sheer irony of this situation in Massachussetts today is that it was Sen. Kennedy who was most fervently spearheading the push toward universal healthcare. And it may just be "his" seat which prevents it from happening.

What rights do we Americans have?

More importantly, what rights should we have? Evaluating our rights was one of the findings that was revealed in a recent survey by the American Revolution Center. The analysis of the survey is lengthy, but I did want to bring some very interesting findings to your attention for feedback. The question posed to the respondents was, "Is it essential that Americans have the right to [insert name of specific right], important but not esssential, or not that important?" The following represents a summary of the answers to that question (by percentage):

1. The right to a fair trial (Essential = 84%, Important = 14%, Not important = 1%)

2. The right to practice the religion of your choice (Essential = 80%, Important = 18%, Not important = 2%)

3. The right to privacy (Essential = 76%, Important = 22%, Not important = 2%)

4. The right to speak freely about whatever you want (Essential = 70%, Important = 28%, Not important = 2%)

5. The right to practice no religion (Essential = 66%, Important = 23%, Not important = 10%)

6. The right to assemble, march, protest, or petition the government (Essential = 65%, Important = 29%, Not important = 6%)

7. The right to not have your property searched or seized (Essential = 59%, Important = 32%, Not important = 6%)

8. The right to own firearms (Essential = 45%, Important = 35%, Not important = 19%)

So, what do you think? As many people may or may not know, these are the kinds of rights guaranteed every American in the U.S. Constitution. (For the list of the Bill of Rights and the other amendments to the Constitution, click here.) Whatever one may think of them, they are ours and the reasoning behind them is worth revisiting, even in this modern age. We certainly could all use a refresher. :)