Presented here in 11 parts. Some of them weren’t embeddable, but I’ll link to them.

By the way, forgive the stupid “Mox News” stuff. They’re the only ones who uploaded the entire debate to YouTube.

Part 1


Part 2


Click here to watch Part 3

Part 4


Part 5


Part 6


Click here to watch Part 7

Part 8


Part 9


Part 10


Part 11


So what did you think?

An amazing editorial was published the New York Times yesterday. Not just because Warren Buffett lays waste to nearly every single “taxation kills investment” argument…but because he has lost his patience with those who don’t understand history.

To start…

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Indeed.

But wait…there’s more…

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

I bold that second paragraph specifically because it flies in the face of what many consider conventional wisdom about taxing investment income.

When engaged in debate over issues like this, people sometimes ask me what would be the incentive to invest if taxes are higher. I answer the same every time because the answer will always be the same: to make money. Is there another ballgame in town when it comes to making money off of money? Sure, you could invest in a small business or a startup, but many investors don’t have the time or patience for that. They want to able to read the tea leaves, pivot off of the market’s emotions and make a quick buck. It’s as simple as that.

All investors know this to be true, but only the intellectually honest ones will admit it. Count Buffett among that group.

And to that point…

The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)

That’s right. Over 20% of the richest people in the US didn’t make any income that would qualify for payroll taxes. And even if they did, it’s unlikely that made up any significant portion of their actual income. It’s all investments folks. Wake up.

Here are Buffett’s suggestions…

Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

All sage advice.

…and it will never happen.

Thank you Tea Party!

I still think it’s a stunt, but Trump is making moves towards running a real campaign.

So says Politico:

Despite an almost universal refusal by Republican establishment figures and the press to take him seriously, Donald Trump is taking very concrete steps toward forming — and announcing — a presidential campaign.

He has interviewed at least two people for a campaign manager position, sources said. He is in contact with several well-known media consultants and has spoken to figures in the evangelical community such as Ralph Reed and Tony Perkins.

Something tells me that evangelicals will not take a shine to Trump and his personal politics. Huckabee or Palin would be their candidate of choice.

Still, some in the fold feel he’s serious…

“I’m convinced he’s probably going to run,” said Steve Scheffler, the head of the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition, who said Trump contacted him this past Wednesday in an “introduction” phone call.

“If he comes to Iowa and he engages in conversations in small groups of people one-on-one he might play well on that,” said Scheffler. “I think a lot of it has to do with where he stands on the issues, and if he can convince people that he’s going to go forward on the issues.”

Note that he’s already talking to folks in Iowa.

And not only that, they’re excited…

Trump’s scheduled keynote speech at the Iowa GOP’s annual Lincoln Day fundraising dinner in June is already such a draw that one attendee is planning to drive in from Northeast Wisconsin to see The Donald speak, a local Republican said.

So he won’t make the mistake that Giuliani made in 2008 and bypass the early states. That’s smart if he actually does plan to run.

But again…I don’t buy it.

Regardless…Palin who?

By the way, the picture above is from a Tea Party rally. He’ll be right at home with all those birthers.

More as it develops…

Obama, GOP freshmen win in jet engine budget fight

WASHINGTON (AP) — Determined to reduce deficits, impatient House Republican freshmen made common cause with President Barack Obama on Wednesday, scoring their biggest victory to date in a vote to cancel $450 million for an alternative engine for the Pentagon’s next-generation warplane.

“Right here, right now was a surefire way to reduce spending,” declared Rep. Tom Rooney of Florida, a second-term lawmaker whose summons to cut money from the F-35 fighter jet was answered by 47 Republican newcomers…

Strictly by the numbers, the vote was a bipartisan one, with 110 Republicans and 123 Democrats supporting cancellation of the funds, while 68 Democrats and 130 Republicans wanted to leave them in place. But that breakdown obscured the change wrought by the voters last fall. A similar vote in May ended in defeat for opponents of the alternative engine.”

Let’s review. The alternate engine is a defense pork barrel project that will not die because it is supported by legislators determined to bring home the bacon to their respective district or state. It was opposed by Presidents Bush and Obama, as well as both of the their Secretaries of Defense as unneeded and a waste of taxpayer money. Nevertheless, Congress continued to allocate billions on an engine the military did not want or need.

Last May, with a Democratic President and large Democratic majorities in both the Senate and House, this project continued to be funded, passing in Nancy Pelosi’s House of Representatives by a vote of 231-193.

Last week, in the Republican controlled House of Representatives, with Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner supporting the continued funding of the unneeded engine, it was finally defeated. Credit to President Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates for reaching out to Republican legislators and the new crop of Tea Party supported freshmen Republican representatives who stood up to their own leadership.

Of course, this is still not over. The Democratic controlled Senate may yet restore the funding. Having demonstrated my difficulty identifying Senator party affiliation in a previous post, I’ll leave it to the reader to figure out where the problem in the Senate may lie:

Postscript: Some of you may remember Justin, who used to be a regular contributor here. He had some things to say about this very issue shortly after the election.

From his post:

“If Republicans are serious about tightening our belts, cutting the budget deficit and the overall deficit, then programs like this need to be shelved. Tea Partiers, I’m looking at you. Want to prove you’re more than just a marketing gimmick? Take a stand on issues like this.”

From his comments:

“If it is revealed that a wide swath of GOPers don’t agree with his assessment, I will write a post about that. Trust me, I would GLADLY write a post about that.”

I am considering offering him an opportunity to follow up with a guest post.

Yes, this man has the right to be furious with what happened, but directing that anger towards the worst possible scenario is irresponsible.

From Politico:

James Eric Fuller, 63, was detained on misdemeanor disorderly conduct and threat charges Saturday during the event taped for a special edition of ABC’s “This Week,” Pima County sheriff’s spokesman Jason Ogan said.

He apparently became upset when Trent Humphries suggested that conversations about gun control be delayed until all the dead were buried, KGUN-TV in Tucson reported.

Authorities said he took a picture of the leader and yelled “you’re dead.”

Still, any way you slice it this is tragic.

More as it develops…

I bet you never thought you’d see those two in the same headline. I’m a bit surprised myself. Bernie should know better.

From The Weekly Standard comes the text of the email from Sanders…

Given the recent tragedy in Arizona, as well as the start of the new Congress, I wanted to take this opportunity to share a few words with political friends in Vermont and throughout the country. I also want to thank the very many supporters who have begun contributing online to my 2012 reelection campaign at www.bernie.org. There is no question but that the Republican Party, big money corporate interests and right-wing organizations will vigorously oppose me. Your financial support now and in the future is much appreciated.

And from The Daily Caller comes the Tea Party email…

TEA PARTY WON’T BE SILENCED FOLLOWING ARIZONA SHOOTING

This weekend we all were horrified to hear the news of the violent shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and several others in Arizona.

One thing that surprised us was how many in the news media and liberal political figures and organizations immediately launched into an attack on the tea party movement – assigning blame for the shooting to our grass roots, Constitutionalist movement in general, and Gov. Sarah Palin in particular.

Friends, this is outrageous.

It is quite clear that liberals are trying to exploit this shooting for their own political benefit, and they used deception and dishonesty to try and smear all of us and our beliefs.

You know what the truth is? The truth is that the shooter, Jared Loughner is the one responsible for this atrocity. But liberals are trying to place the blame on society for embracing the tea party movement.

We here at the Tea Party Express find that disgusting and revolting.

This isn’t a new concept for liberals. Let us harken back to the words of Ronald Reagan when he called out the Left for similar behavior in years past: “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” – Ronald Reagan

If Jared Loughner does have a definable political ideology it is that of a far Left anarchist. Loughner is a mentally disturbed young man who sought his ideological fulfillment from the Communist Manifesto – hardly the Bible of the Tea Party movement. He posted videos of flag burning on his YouTube channel – again, antics more consistent with Blame America First liberals, not the tea party movement.
In fact, Loughner’s interactions with Congresswoman Giffords date all the way back to 2007 when he confronted her with a question he had, and received an answer he found unacceptable. You read that right – Loughner’s interactions with Congresswoman Giffords date back to 2007 – well before the tea party movement had even been launched.

This was all an effort to try and demean us and diminish support for the tea party movement, since the Left could not beat us at the ballot box. Sadly way too many people in the media cooperated with this smear campaign.

The media didn’t tell you that the left-wing website, DailyKos, had targeted Congresswoman Giffords, putting a BULLSEYE on her, did they? But that’s just what happened.

Instead they tried to blame Gov. Sarah Palin. Friends, their hypocrisy and double standards are appalling.

This kind of media bias is a large part of why our tea party movement exists – because the voices of We The People have not been represented fairly by the news media, and listened to by our elected officials.

Well guess what: to those liberals in the news media and on the political Left who think you can silence us, you are wrong! Your efforts to try and smear us and shut us up will fail.

We have nothing to do with this awful, tragic event in Arizona. Our prayers are with Congresswoman Giffords and the victims and families of this massacre.

But we will still fight just as passionately for this country we love, and the vision of our Founding Fathers as outlined by the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

We’re taking our country back through the ballot box and in the public square – through peaceful means. And we will prevail, because our ideas and ideals are stronger than the scare/smear/defame tactics of the leftists we face.

We ask you to please stand with the Tea Party Express and show your support for our efforts.

You can make a contribution online right now to the Tea Party Express – CLICK HERE TO CONTRIBUTE.

As always, if you prefer, you may also make a contribution via mail, by sending a check to:
Tea Party Express
8795 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 103
Sacramento, CA 95826-3720

Listen, both of them are inappropriate, but the Tea Party email is pretty egregious since it never would have existed if this tragedy hadn’t happened. Basically, I can buy that Sanders would have sent out a “hey, how ya doing?” email to his constituents since the shooting isn’t the basis for the email itself. So yeah, while it doesn’t make it right or in good taste…it certainly doesn’t make me want to take a bath like the Tea Party one does.

Your thoughts?

Incredibly eerie in retrospect. Here’s what Gifford said on March 25, 2010…

“…for example, we’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list, but the thing is that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district, and when people do that, they’ve gotta realize there are consequences to that action.”

This was in response to Giffords’ door being shattered by somebody after the Palin target list popped up.

And here’s the video…

Again, I ask Republicans to stop using gun rhetoric and symbolism in their campaign literature. It’s completely unnecessary and only appeals to extremism within your base.

Peter Beinart makes a good point about our massive defense budget and undeclared wars…

In modern times, conservative presidents like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have tried to reconcile their efforts to rein in federal power with their support for a large military and an interventionist foreign policy. But both times, the latter has seriously trumped the former. Under both Reagan and Bush, aggressive, militaristic foreign policy produced more presidential power and larger deficits.

Tea Partiers say their movement is a response to the way government power, and government debt, grew under both Bush and Obama. But if they looked seriously at the reasons for that growth under Bush, they would see that much of what they’re upset about is the military and homeland security spending justified by his expansive “war on terror.”

Anyone genuinely worried about debt can’t ignore the fact that defense constitutes a majority of federal discretionary spending. And anyone devoted to a strict interpretation of the Constitution can’t ignore the fact that America is still fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention Pakistan, Yemen and lots of other places, without formal congressional declarations of war, although that is what the Constitution requires.

Come on now Peter, we all know something is constitutional when they say it is.

In order to get the votes he needs to make sure unemployed Americans get the relief they need (and deserve) and employed Americans continue to enjoy payroll tax cuts, Obama is cutting a deal with the Repubs on the extension of the Bush tax cuts.

As I’ve pointed out previously, this goes against the anti-spending sentiment of the Tea Party and yet here we are…talking about tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans being extended for another couple years.

Funny, I thought the election was about the deficit and spending…

From Wash Post:

The deal has been in the works for more than a week and represents a concession by Obama to political reality: Democrats don’t have the votes in Congress to extend only the expiring income tax breaks that benefit the middle class. The White House estimates that the proposed agreement would prevent typical families from facing annual tax increases of about $3,000, starting Jan. 1.

Obama was able to extract an agreement from GOP leaders to support an additional 13 months of jobless benefits, a 2 percent employee payroll tax cut and extensions of several tax credits aimed at working families that were included in the stimulus bill.

And if you didn’t think one concession to the Repubs was enough, how about two?

The deal also would revive the estate tax, but it would exempt inheritances of up to $5 million for individuals and $10 million for couples. Democrats on Capitol Hill are strongly opposed to setting the cap at that high a level and to the 35 percent rate discussed by Obama and Republicans that would apply to the taxable portion of estates.

And just to make sure we’ll on the same page…tax rates are at the lowest point in 60 years.

And here’s some key points about our deficit crisis and tax revenue…

• Federal taxes are the lowest in 60 years, which gives you a pretty good idea of why America’s long-term debt ratios are a big problem. If the taxes reverted to somewhere near their historical mean, the problem would be solved at a stroke.
• Income taxes, in particular, both personal and corporate, are low and falling. That trend is not sustainable.
• Employment taxes, by contrast—the regressive bit of the fiscal structure—are bearing a large and increasing share of the brunt. Any time that somebody starts complaining about how the poor don’t pay income tax, point them to this chart. Income taxes are just one part of the pie, and everybody with a job pays employment taxes.
• There aren’t any wealth taxes, but the closest thing we’ve got—estate and gift taxes—have shrunk to zero, after contributing a non-negligible amount to the public fisc in earlier decades.

Also, Ben Bernanke notes that the good times are continuing to roll for the rich…

Here’s what Ben has to say about this…

“It’s a very bad development,” he said. “It’s creating two societies. And it’s based very much, I think, on educational differences. The unemployment rate we’ve been talking about. If you’re a college graduate, unemployment is 5 percent. If you’re a high school graduate, it’s 10 percent or more. It’s a very big difference.”

Mr. Bernanke added: “It leads to an unequal society, and a society which doesn’t have the cohesion that we’d like to see.”

Long story short, the rich are having a hell of a good time driving our debt up. If you believe the rich shouldn’t be taxed as much as the rest of us, well, I can’t argue that with you. But if you believe that the more you earn, the more you should get taxed (which is how it was always supposed to work) you have to wonder why this is happening.

More as it develops…

It wasn’t the squeaker that was once reported. Looks like he’ll win by 5%, which is a pretty big swing from what the polls were projecting. But we all know it wasn’t a matter of Reid being good. Angle was just that bad.

From the LA Times:

Reporting from Las Vegas — Democratic Sen. Harry Reid bested Republican upstart Sharron Angle to win the U.S. Senate contest in Nevada, a costly, closely watched brawl that pitted one of President Obama’s top lieutenants against a “tea party” favorite.

Outside groups poured millions of dollars into a race that many political observers saw as a referendum on Obama administration policies, which Reid had guided through the Senate. Angle bashed the policies throughout the campaign as doing little to help bring down Nevada’s stubbornly high unemployment rate.

Reid, 70, the soft-spoken, sometimes-prickly Senate majority leader, suffered from dismal approval ratings and a deep-held resentment of his sway over state affairs.

Looks like the Senate will end up 51/49, with Dems keeping control.

Maybe.

First off, I think almost all of the major Tea Party Senate candidates will lose. That means O’Donnell, Angle and Miller will not be going to Washington. However, I think Rand Paul will squeak out a victory in Kentucky.

So what will the split end up looking like?

SENATE
Dems – 52
Repubs – 48

I’m not sure what this will do to the mood of the Tea Party, but it could very well energize them (meaning conservative Republicans who simply call themselves Tea Partiers) to continue to push for more extreme candidates.

What I think is obvious from the results above is had they not fielded candidates like O’Donnell and Angle (and to some extent Miller, although Repubs are very likely to retain their seat in Alaska) they’d be looking at a majority in both chambers of Congress. So there’s that.

In the House, Repubs are set to gain quite a few seats and my guess is 50+. Centrist Dems simply won’t be able to hold on to the gains they’ve made over the past 6 years and 2012 is likely to yield even more swing towards the Repubs with redistricting happening across the nation in the next couple years.

HOUSE
Repubs – 231
Dems – 204

However, will all the pomp about the Tea Party, I see them having a negligible effect on the day to day of that branch. Still, we’re sure to see some really crazy speeches in the next couple years, which may help Obama get reelected.

What are you predicts?

She’s not a witch She’s you.

God bless you Tea Party.

(NOTE: If Christine O’Donnell wins, I reserve the right to post often about her.)

With another decisive and bitter election coming up, it looks like further gridlock as Americans split further apart politically, socially and economically.  Names and labels are replacing concepts and ideas that once brought people to the table.  Not to be too romantic or idealistic but what ever happen to the concept of What you can do for your country?  Have we become a self centered, hedonistic, spoiled brat of a nation?  Or am I just a foolish cartoonist who thinks this country can still come together with action instead of words?  This is a rhetorical question by the way ;)

Will last night’s debate swing the race?

I didn’t see it, but I’m hearing that Angle looked sort of like a Senator and that may be all she needs to defeat the wildly unpopular Senate majority leader.

Here’s the trending from Pollster…

Will Reid squeak this one out?

Will Angle be the Tea Party’s biggest triumph in this election cycle?

Sound off!

It’s jumped considerably since the 2008 election.

But do people really want the Tea Party to be the third way?

Gallup with more…

My gut tells me that most folks understand that the Tea Partiers are just really angry conservatives who are lashing out at their own for supporting fiscally irresponsible behavior. And yes, there are some independents who identify with that too, but once those folks scratch the surface of the Tea Party, I guarantee 90% of them will not like what they find. And the other 10% were conservatives who just liked to call themselves independents.

And to that point, note how the number of conservatives wanting a third party has shot up more than any other group. Coincidence?

Still, liberals and independents want a third way more and I think there’s appetite for a moderate left/middle progressive-lite alternative to the Tea Party message. One that stresses fiscal responsibility, social justice and basic fairness…all wrapped up in a populist “let’s get back to work” message. It won’t happen in the next election cycle, but don’t be surprised if it pops up in 2016 if Obama wins or Obama loses in 2012.

Either way, it’s on the horizon.

What say you?

Looks like the Tea Party folks are getting a lot more push back from the GOP then they were expecting. First Mike Castle won’t endorse Christine O’Donnell in Delaware and now Lisa Murkowski is literally trying to win while not being on the ballot.

From Anchorage Daily News:

Murkowski said she agonized over the decision to run as a write-in and that, as of Thursday night, she still didn’t know if she was going to do it. She said she kept hearing from Alaskans who felt they couldn’t vote for either Miller or the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate seat, Sitka Mayor Scott McAdams.

“They told me that we cannot accept the extremist views of Joe Miller,” she said. “We can’t accept those views and, equally, we can’t accept the inexperience of Mr. McAdams,” she said.

So, does she have a shot? Well, as the story notes, the last time a write in campaign was successful was in 1956 when Strom Thurmond won in South Carolina. That doesn’t mean it can’t happen again, and Alaska is a very different type of state. If Murkowski can effectively paint Miller as a radical and McAdams as inexperienced, that could bode well for an independent run.

Still, McAdams is the mayor of Sitka, a small Alaskan town with roughly the same population as Wasilla. I’m not saying that McAdams should make the comparison to Palin, but there is a parallel.

Looks like Murkowski is already getting ahead of anything Palin will say to effectively neutralize her endorsement with a more populist message…

Former Gov. Sarah Palin, whose support for Miller drove hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from the Tea Party Express his way, called Murkowski’s effort futile. Murkowski offered a response to Palin, who resigned as governor last year, and to others she described as “naysayers” in Washington D.C.

“Perhaps it’s one time they met one Republican woman who won’t quit on Alaska,” Murkowski said, receiving a huge standing ovation from her supporters.

So, can she do it?

Cue Nate Silver:

Can Ms. Murkowski win? Sure she can. There is plenty of precedent for write-ins being elected to the Congress, although fewer have done so successfully in recent years. Meanwhile, a poll by Public Policy Polling found Ms. Murkowski getting 34 percent of the vote against Mr. Miller’s 38 percent and Mr. McAdams’ 22 percent. Private polling has also shown Ms. Murkowski running closely with Mr. Miller, according to The Hotline. [...]

Finally, Alaska has a large number of independents. A plurality of 42 percent of Alaskans identified themselves that way in exit polling in 2008, one of the highest percentages in the country. Thus, an independent candidacy like Ms. Murkowski’s has a natural constituency of sorts.

As the saying goes, “May you live in interesting times.”

Why?

Public Policy Polling explains…

Republicans more than likely cost themselves a Senate seat last night. Chris Coons begins the general election in Delaware with a 50-34 lead over Christine O’Donnell. Mike Castle would have led Coons by a 45-35 margin.

While O’Donnell may have ingratiated herself to Delaware’s small group of registered Republicans over the last month she’s turned off everyone else. An August Daily Kos/PPP poll in Delaware found her favorability rating at 23/33. It’s now 29/50.

Very lopsided unfavorable numbers this close to the election? Think she can turn that around? Highly unlikely.

So what did Republicans (or, more accurately, Tea Partiers) in Delaware throw away last night? A super easy pick up. Now a lot of moderate Republicans will be backing Coons as a protest vote against O’Donnell…

If Castle had won he would have received more Democratic support than any other Republican Senate candidate in the country. Now our polling suggests with O’Donnell’s victory that Coons will win more Republicans than any other Democratic Senate candidate in the country. That’s because of a general unwillingness to support O’Donnell from Castle’s moderate base- folks from the centrist wing of the GOP are planning to support Coons 54-31.

By the way, O’Donnell’s opponent Mike Castle will not be endorsing her.

This is funny for so many reasons…

First, if you’re Carl Cameron you have to feel kind of embarrassed at this transparent admission that Fox News should just play ball and walk through Angle’s talking points.

Second, if you’re Fox News, well, can you hear that echo?

Third, if you’re a member of the Tea Party or a conservative who would consider voting for her…that has to give you a slight bit of pause. Especially since you’re all about freedoms, one of the most important being a free press.

But let’s hear what you think. Was she just kidding? Is angle savvier than we think?

Sound off!

There is simply not a tent big enough to encompass the full spectrum of policy positions held by those opposed to our current One Party Democratic Rule, including: fiscal conservatives; social conservatives; Republican partisans; libertarians; independents; and the tea party movement. But there does not need to be a unanimity of policy preferences for the GOP to prevail. All they need in November is a common objective and general agreement that a key issue takes precedence over all others. My take -

• The objective is restoring balance and restraint in our federal government.
• The key issue is restraining the insane growth of spending and curtailing the fiscal irresponsibility exhibited by the Democrats and this administration.

In a nutshell – “It’s the spending, stupid” – (Thank you again James Carville).

The Tea Party movement is a microcosm of the opposition coalition, willfully misunderstood and mis-characterized by Democratic Party partisans. So far, the Tea Party has shown considerable focus, political acumen and seem to understand that social issues must take a back seat to economic issues in this election.

Flipping majorities in the House of Representatives is extraordinarily difficult. Gerrymandered districts, high congressional re-election rates, and the propensity of voters to dislike congress in general but like their specific congressperson in particular – all must all be overcome to flip the House. It can only happen when a pervasive national mood overcomes the Tip O’Neill homily “All politics is local”.

Difficult, but doable. It happened in 1994 when disparate opposition united to reject the overreach, fiscal irresponsibility, and corruption of One Party Democratic Rule. It happened in 2006 when disparate opposition united to reject the overreach, fiscal irresponsibility and corruption of One Party Republican Rule. Voters don’t need a sweeping agenda. They just need to be unified in a desire to sweep out the party in power. The opposition voting coalition may not survive beyond the 2010 mid-terms, but it does not need to.

McManus continues:

The bogeyman of “gridlock” will not dissuade voters. While often messy, political gridlock in Washington D.C. can yield very positive results. The poster child of dysfunctional gridlock is the Clinton/Gingrich budget impasse that shut down the government in 1995. Ugly – to be sure. Yet out of that same dynamic during the six years of divided and “gridlocked” government, we got a lot of good, smart governance: NAFTA, GATT, Welfare Reform, PAYGO, Tax cuts, reduction in the growth of federal spending, deficit reduction, growing economy, Crime Bill, Brady Bill, new national parks, low unemployment and a balanced budget. Ahh, the good ol’ days. I’ll take that kind of gridlock anytime.

I am not the only one nostalgic for the golden age of gridlock. AP is reporting that Newt Gingrich is considering a run for President. The problem for Gingrich – it is not him, but divided government that invokes the nostalgia. if the Republicans do as well as some polls are indicating in November, voters will need to re-elect Barack Obama to keep that good - Democratic President, Republican Congress – gridlock feeling.

^{UPDATE: 15-Jul-10}

Just noticed this WaPo Howard Kurtz column that strikes some similar notes:

The Gridlock Option

…what if Americans like obstructionists? By which I mean, what if the country, having sampled all-Democratic rule in Washington, would much prefer divided government?

It has, of course, happened before. Voters saddled Ronald Reagan with a Democratic Senate in his last two years in office. Bill Clinton seemed to overreach in his first two years and the voters rewarded him with a Republican Congress for the last six. George W. Bush was six years into his term when the voters gave Democrats control of both chambers.

That’s why the Obama rhetoric about giving back the keys may fall flat: A Republican Congress wouldn’t be running things. It would be more in the role of backseat driver. GOP lawmakers could schedule hearings, issue subpoenas, keep bills off the floor — but would have a hard time passing anything over a presidential veto.

That could be a formula for gridlock — but if enough voters are angry at big government, they might prefer a government that doesn’t do much. Or it could force both parties to compromise, as when Clinton and the Gingrich Congress agreed on welfare reform and a balanced budget.”

Smart guy that Kurtz.

^{Cross-posted from “Divided We Stand United We Fall“}