Atlantic Sentinel

Tag: US Elections 2010

Congressional elections were held in the United States on November 2. Republicans took control of the House of Representatives with a 9-point swing in their favor. Democrats lost six Senate seats, but retained a majority.

  • A Quick Reaction on the Midterms

    Now that the midterm elections are over, with the Republicans capturing the House of Representatives for the first time in four years (as predicted by pollsters), questions are swirling over what President Barack Obama’s agenda will be over the remainder of his term.

    Undoubtedly, the president will be forced to cooperate with Republicans like he has never had to do before. Domestic issues as the economy, fiscal policy, the debt, and government spending loom large for both parties at this point, and I seldom see the Obama Administration getting everything it wants without a little give and take. From an historical standpoint, the situation is reminiscent of President Bill Clinton’s experience in 1994, when Newt Gingrich’s Republican Party recaptured the House after being in the minority for an unprecedented forty years. At that time, Clinton managed to heed the challenge. Will Obama be able to do the same thing? The answer is up in the air.

    What I’m interested in is the election’s effects with regard to Obama’s foreign policy. Even with both houses of Congress in solid Democratic hands, the Obama Administration’s lack of success abroad was pervasive. The record is clear; a stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process, an ever-closer nuclear Iran; a chaotic Iraq; an escalated war in Afghanistan; a neglected Latin American policy. Surely an opposing party in the legislature will not make things any easier for him? Right? Wrong. (more…)

  • Rand Paul, Jack Conway Debate

    In Louisville, Kentucky yesterday, Fox News Sunday hosted a debate between Republican Senate candidate Dr Rand Paul and his Democratic opponent, the state’s Attorney General Jack Conway. Among the issues discussed were the nation debt, spending, cap-and-trade, and the Obama agenda.

    Moderator Chris Wallace pointed out early in the debate that whereas Conway was running campaign ads which portrayed Paul as being out of the mainstream, the libertarian candidate’s campaign hardly mentioned Conway. On air, Paul stressed that the issues were at stake in his campaign and he wasted little time to talk about them. He said that he opposed the administration’s energy agenda because its effects would be disastrous for Kentucky’s coal industry. Conway moreover, according to Paul, had in been in favor of President Barack Obama’s stimulus package; something that he believes has failed to recover the American economy. When pressed on the jobs supposedly saved or created by the stimulus, Paul claimed that 17,000 have been lost because of it while each of the jobs saved had a price tag attached to it of $430,000.

    Conway responded by pointing out that while he supported the stimulus, he had opposed the bailouts for lack of accountability.

    When the discussion came to federal regulation of environmental and workplace safety, the candidates agreed that unelected bureaucrats shouldn’t be the ones making law, as the Environmental Protection Agency recently attempted with regard to greenhouse emissions. They disagreed however on the extent to which government should be involved. Rand, who has been critical of the Democrats’ health care and economic policies, is a proponent of limited government and argued that local authorities are always better equipped to legislate on the things that directly affect people’s lives.

    Discussing his role in the Senate, if elected, Conway expressed support for union card checks and the health-care reform bill enacted by Democrats. When asked about his political position compared to President Obama, Conway repeated his pledge to “put Kentucky first” by focusing on national security and the war on the drugs.

    Paul, finally, said that he would support fellow Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell for Majority Leader if Republicans manage to win back the upper chamber this fall. His allegiance was in question because McConnell previously endorsed Paul’s primary opponent for the nomination. He further promised that more of Kentucky’s tax dollars would stay if Kentucky and that he would fight to rein in government spending.

  • Karl Rove Discusses Tea Party Primary Wins

    With Tea Party backed candidates winning primaries in several states, is the movement usurping the GOP? Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace interviewed Republican campaign strategist Karl Rove over the issue and his party’s refusal to back Delaware candidate Christine O’Donnell.

    Rove said that in order for the Republicans to win they need a winning strategy. The problem with O’Donnell is that there are several questions about her past that have gone unanswered. If those questions linger, Rove warned, O’Donnell can only win if voters decide to ignore them and care about government spending and the recently passed health-care reform bill instead. The winning strategy, however, would be to answer those questions in a sympathetic manner.

    When confronted with O’Donnell’s admittance to “dabbling in witchcraft” back in 1999, Rove expressed concern over the many churchgoing people in Delaware who would want to have some answers about that. “I, frankly, think a winning strategy requires coming to grips with these questions and explaining them in the most sympathetic way possible so that people unblock their ears in Delaware and begin hearing the broader message,” said Rove.

    On the current political drama in Alaska, Rove was asked if Lisa Murkowski’s write-in campaign would win her the Senate seat or cost the Republicans the election. The first part of his reply was a lighthearted jab stating that in a write-in campaign, voters have to spell the candidate’s name correctly and he challenged anyone to write Murkowski’s to see if they can get it right.

    On a more serious note Rove added that he couldn’t imagine the state of Alaska wanting two liberal Democrats who were in line with the Obama Administration’s agenda representing them in Washington but feared that Murkowski could accomplish that as a “spoilsport”.

    My hope is that the Republicans and conservatives in Alaska recognize the bigger issue, which is defeating President Obama’s agenda and go for this highly qualified Republican nominee, a West Point graduate, a military veteran, a graduate of one of the nation’s most prestigious law schools, a former magistrate judge, a practicing attorney in the state and an active Republican.

    Asked about the impact of these primary results on the 2012 presidential race, Rove said that it was too early to tell. People are focused on the midterms and on getting Republicans who are keeping true to the core tenets of the party elected. He did add about Sarah Palin however that if she wanted to prove the amount of pull she had and become the frontrunner instead of just one party favorite, she should head for Delaware and help O’Donnell’s Senate campaign. “Sarah Palin has enormous magnetism and a big following,” he said. “And let her employ it in the field on behalf […] of the candidate that she cares so much about.”

  • Building a Mosque in Election Time

    The newest political hot spot in America is the mosque slated to be built near Ground Zero, the site of the Trade Towers bombing of 2001, in New York City. Politicians are lining up and taking sides in the countdown to elections this fall. Even President Barack Obama voiced his ambivalent and unclear opinion, noting that America’s commitment to religious freedom must be “unshakable.” That includes, according to the president, “the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan.” The next day though, he backpedaled and declared that while people have a right to build mosques in America if they want to, he isn’t quite sure about the wisdom of this particular location.

    As always politicians are using the controversy first stirred up by conservative talk radio hosts to make election bids. Some are saying that they believe in freedom of religion; others that they believe in zoning laws and the sacredness of this particular site. And surprisingly, unlike most issues, this one is not split down party lines.

    For one thing, mere months from November’s midterm elections for Congress, no one can afford to disenfranchise his or her electorate. According to a recent CNN poll 68 percent of Americans are opposed to the mosque being built at Ground Zero. Even politicians not up for election this cycle have to watch their step or risk losing votes for their party. Many lawmakers have decided that silence, at least on this issue, is golden. Whatever they say, they’re bound to insult either their political base or their political party. We are way past the days of actual integrity and principle, if ever those days have existed in Washington.

    What are the principles behind the issue? America certainly is a place of freedom, including religious freedom. Yet there are lines. Your freedom to do what you like cannot infringe on another’s for example. And no matter your religious preferences they cannot suspend the laws of the land, thus polygamy, human and animal sacrifices and honor killings are all illegal notwithstanding your religion.

    To say the mosque should be built because of religious freedom is an emotional response and not an analytical one. There are already many mosques in America and none have ever been controversial as this one is. It’s not the mosque; it’s the location. The truth is that the building of this mosque in this neighborhood in New York is a local issue and has nothing to do with the federal government or the nation as a whole at all, at least under normal circumstances. With this in mind President Obama’s initial refusal to comment was the appropriate one since this has nothing to with him nor his branch of government. But these are not normal circumstances.

    In this particular case even though the planes blew up and destroyed buildings in New York the attack was made on the whole of the United States and its people. Muslims made the attack. Perhaps not these Muslims, but the mosque’s intended location is certainly politically provocative and intended to be so. So the people of the United States and at length their president, after due consideration, do have every right to weigh in on this debate. Whatever the outcome, the mosque controversy will certainly affect the November elections and perhaps even those of 2012.

  • Challenge from the States

    American midterm primary elections for November are coming up this month in most states. This election, though not a presidential one, will be pivotal in determining the future direction of the country, perhaps even more so than those of 2012.

    The greatest political upset in many generations is about to take place because Americans are mad. It’s not just the jobs or the taxes or the government spending or even the economy as a whole, though that is certainly a part of it. The thing that has Americans most angry is the complete disregard for We the People. Our Constitution is no longer sacred to power hungry politicians and even less so to members of “Crime Inc.,” as Glenn Beck dubs the organized international effort to destroy the world economy and with it, freedom.

    There is nothing so fundamentally important to America as the Constitution. It is the standard of freedom, not for a country or for a society or for a culture but for individuals. It declares that individuals deserve equal protection under the law; it reins in the power of government, declares certain rights inviolable and brings peace and prosperity to all who follow its precepts.

    But with the federal government tromping all over the Constitution, what hope can there be now?

    That is why these elections are so important.

    First, in spite of the twisting of words, the American people know exactly who is responsible. People who are part of the problem in the House and Senate will be removed from office. And yes, that means Republicans as well as Democrats. We will still have a progressive Democratic president and most likely a conservative Republican Congress. This means that not much will done in the next two years and that is a very good thing. Government never makes law except when it takes away more freedom and expands the role of government while simultaneously increasing the national debt.

    But here’s why having an ineffective federal government for two years will really benefit America. Not only federal seats will be turned over to Independents and Republicans, but so will state governments go from ineffective or progressive leaders to truly conservative constitutionally responsible leaders.

    The threat to the federal government and the real change on the horizon will not come from within the system; it will come from the states. The various states, which have already begun to show their teeth to the Feds will gain more and more in power and confidence until their so far halting and disjointed efforts will reach a concerted change in the subservient relationship of the states to the federal government. The Constitution will be resurrected and as it is held up by the states, the federal government will be forced to return to its constitutional role, within the boundaries set by those states with enough guts to take it on.

    37 states are having governor’s races this year. There are also state legislators and local officials in towns and counties running for reelection. As these races take place, more Americans are more aware of the fundamental issues at stake than ever before and what’s more, it is in the primaries that their greatest effect will be felt. The candidate with the most constitutionally conservative stance will win in many districts and in many states. States that are strongly Democratic will go Republican or Independent. Those already in the hands of Republicans will change to different, more conservative, Republicans. No candidate running from the left will have any chance in most districts.

    The real challenge to the federal government will come from the states, but the federal government has no idea of what is coming. They are focused on national seats in the legislature. They think they have the states under their financial thumb.