TruGlobalist

The ambitious, telegenic, hockey mom from Wasilla, Alaska, wants to be president. She hasn’t said as much in words, but her recent actions speak volumes. The former governor and former vice presidential nominee, has morphed into a powerful, political supernova . Her endorsements garner votes. Her television appearances fetches millions. And her public appearances draws crowds. Like it or not, Sarah Palin is a superstar.

In a previous post titled “The Case For Sarah Palin”, I wrote the following about Palin’s political relevance:

[Sarah] Palin is without a doubt the most popular figure in the Republican party. Her soon to be published memoir is already a bestseller. Her facebook page has garnered thousands of hits from supporters (922,298 so far). She has become a symbol of honest conservatism for many Republicans. According to a Pew Research Center Poll, Palin remains popular with seventy-three (73%) percent of Republicans even after her resignation as Governor.

Since that posting Palin has become the premier conservative voice. Her presence looms large over the Republican party. In fact, she is to many, the face of the Republican Party. But this hasn’t yet quelled the doubters. Many question her erratic, unsophisticated approach to politics. But Palin has become more at ease politically. She is in control. Finally, the barracuda is free to be herself.

Her path to the presidency officially begins today. She has just released what appears to be a campaign ad, geared towards the female vote. Could she be testing the waters for a women oriented campaign ala Hillary Clinton? Perhaps. But what’s impressive is the presidential aura Palin exudes in the ad. Despite her past gaffes, poor interviews and sometimes incoherent policy exhortations; Palin casts herself as the grassroots, underdog of 2012.

And in a country where the underdog often wins, her strategy might just work.

“I voted for the lady … – I didn’t like all of the junk that the other campaigns were saying about the lady.” South Carolina voter.

When an Indian-American lawmaker took on the status quo of her state, things got ugly fast. For gubernatorial hopeful, Nikki Haley, the ride to the top has been an uphill battle; literally. The good old boys network of South Carolina are afraid of losing control. Hence their mud-slinging directed at Haley. But in the end integrity prevailed.

Watching from afar the three-ring circus that was South Carolina’s Republican gubernatorial primary, was a cringe-inducing experience. Sexism mated with racism and begot cynicism. As South Carolinians sorted through the sordid attacks aimed at Haley, the stench of dirty politics reverberated across the country.

From alleged extra marital affairs to an uninhibited racial slur; the politics of yesteryear was alive and kicking. Days after Haley surged in the polls, with a double digit lead, two men, one a blogger the other a lobbyist, alleged affairs with Haley. Their downfall was their lack of evidence. Despite this, Haley, who denied the allegations, plodded forward with her husband and two children by her side. A few days later, a prominent local Republican politician, called Haley a “raghead”. A slur often used to insult Muslims and Sikhs. And yet Haley marched forward.

In the midst of the political frenzy in South Carolina, one truth is self-evident. Haley is the change agent the Republican Party desperately needs. Her appeal is like a volcano in slumber waiting to erupt. She is the daughter of immigrants, a self-made woman, with boundless charisma and raging political astuteness. She is the antidote to the status quo.

But Haley’s campaign should be an eye opening experience for voters. American politics has become a cannibal-like, blood sport. It’s all about power. It’s all about money. In states across the country, the political machine, put in place by proponents of the status quo, benefit’s the few while disenfranchising the many. Look around your state, your county, your city or town, look closely and you’ll see the politically connected, toiling behind closed doors, advancing their agenda. Cynicism is their end game.

Politics is often fueled by extremist elements from both sides of the political spectrum. Cable and radio programs constantly bombard us with vitriol and anger. They excoriate centrists (like me) for being “indecisive” or “passive”. They mistake our pragmatic approach for weakness. But pragmatism advances solutions. And sidesteps cynicism.

The antidote to cynicism is to vote. The collective will of the people expressed through the voting process is what democracy is all about. We witnessed it in South Carolina this past Tuesday. Voters slayed the monster of cynicism and voted for change.

And this time change came in the form of Nikki Haley.

Sources: New York times, Associated Press, New York Post, CNN.

Ivy has become the operative descriptor for the Supreme Court. Consider the academic biography of each Justice post Elena Kagan’s confirmation. (Each justice will have graduated from either Yale or Harvard). While diversity lingers on a superficial surface, ivy beckons. Not that an over priced ivy league education is inconsequential. But too much of a presumed good thing is almost, certainly, not good.

Washington Post writers Sarah Kaufman and Dan Zak, turn to the past for answers.

In the current climate, diversity of one kind (gender, racial or ethnic) seems to outweigh diversity of another (economic, geographic or experience outside the law). Gone are the days when a Supreme Court justice could be plucked from outside the East Coast, Ivy-centric ranks. In the ’20s and ’30s, Warren E. Burger combined a day job at an insurance agency with night school at St. Paul College of Law in Minnesota and went on to become chief justice. Sandra Day O’Connor was born, raised and educated west of the Mississippi. She grew up on an Arizona cattle ranch without electricity or running water, graduated from Stanford Law School and became the first female justice in 1981.

And lets not forget the Harriet Miers debacle in 2005. Miers, a graduate of Southern Methodist University, and a George W. Bush nominee, was lambasted as unqualified, and ridiculed for lacking the expectant credentials. The uproar over her nomination derives from a narrow perception, held by those who value exclusivity.

This perception is limiting in nature. It rejects outright all institutions not aligned with the ethos of a select few. What results instead is a mirage that purports to be diversity.  This illusion is achievable when other factors become the sole ingredient for what constitutes diversity. Gender and ethnicity for example, often trump educational background. But their must be a consistent equilibrium in the nominating process. Constructing an image of apparent diversity, which fulfills visible requirements, and is often judged by the naked eye, is incomplete. Presumed diversity is an abstract concept promoted to satisfy the majority class’ yearning for representation. But it’s merely that, a concept, devoid of the true essence of the American experience.

As Americans we want our government and Supreme Court to mirror us. We want to see our reflection in the upper echelons of American power. A government for the people, and certainly, by the people. I am in no shape or form discounting the unique talents and experiences of each Justice. Quite the contrary. In fact, Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination was a triumph for all Americans. But the broader picture must also be considered.

More Americans attend public universities than private ones. Why not have those Americans on the Supreme Court? Politicians often praise the academic achievement of public universities when advocating for their funding. What better way to affirm the validity of public education than to appoint graduates of such institutions to important posts. Actions speak louder than words.

Sadly, Americans are divided along many lines. Race, ethnicity, gender, religion, political affiliation, social status and educational background. President Obama missed an opportunity here. By nominating someone with the same academic background as the other justices, he has assured representation of some, but not all.

Source: Washington Post.

Andrew Sullivan is right about Sarah Palin’s presumed presidential run. His bottom line: She’s running. And I’m inclined to agree. Palin 2012 is already in motion. And some are frothing at the mouth at the prospect. But Sullivan isn’t one of them.

“She has wanted to be president for much of her adult political life. She wanted it well over a decade ago. She risked a huge amount in saying yes to John McCain, a gamble of monumental proportions, in the pursuit of that goal. She believes sincerely that she is on a mission from God, that she is the Esther of the End-Times. Why is any of this hard to understand? By her words and her actions, she wants to be the GOP nominee. And at a time when Republican extremism is the brand, who better represents the party than she?”

Those who dismiss her thirst for executive power, as mere gossip, do so at their peril. To negate the obvious is delusional. Palin is a force to be reckoned with. She whips crowds into a frenzy with simplistic one-liners. And her fundraising prowess is unmatched within Republican circles.

So gear up for the roaring flood that is Palin, soon to be unleashed in a year or so. By then she will have established herself as the official, clear-cut, presumptive Republican nominee for president.

And who on the right has the goods to stop the political whirlwind that is Palin? Certainly not Mitt Romney.

She’s coming. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Arizona Governor Jane Brewer, caved to political pressure earlier today, and signed into law Senate Bill 1070. The law will allow police officers to question the immigration status of ‘suspicious’ individuals. But deciphering what constitutes a ‘suspicious’ individual or ’suspicious’ behavior, is easier said than done.

The reality is that individuals will be targeted by ethnicity. Skin color, accent and race will determine who is stopped and questioned. There are no grey areas here; this law upholds racial profiling.

The Hispanic community is the fastest growing minority group in the United States today. We comprise 15% of the overall population. Yet both political party’s continue to ignore comprehensive immigration reform.

Republicans have embraced an overt, anti-immigration reform, platform; while Democrats have yet to act on reform. This stalemate has allowed right-wing rhetoric, against reform, to spread unchallenged. Hispanics now find themselves at odds with protestors who condemn the ‘foreign invasion’.

Comprehensive immigration reform is the only alternative to successfully repairing our broken immigration system. Partisan wrangling disguised as law adds fuel to the fire. And inaction by Congress and the White House will result in more states signing bad bills into law.

A raging storm of seismic proportion is soon to arrive at the shores of the Republican party. Warning clouds have already gathered prematurely in anticipation.

Meanwhile, unprepared right-wing partisans toil in ignorance, unaware, that their rhetoric will soon be tested.

 The surging disconnect between Hispanics and the Republican party has recently widened, to disproportionate levels.

According to the Pew Hispanic Center, in 2008, 67% of Hispanics voted for Barack Obama while 31% voted for John McCain. It was official, Hispanics were a pro-democrat voting bloc.

But how did we get here? Simple. Anti-immigration rhetoric drove us here. Some Hispanics ventured further to the left, while others, (like myself), hunkered down in the reasonable middle. But the left need not celebrate so quickly. Hispanics aren’t beholden to any political party. Their loyalties aren’t easily defined. In fact, immigration, is the heart of their activism.

Consider the following. Republican leaders who support comprehensive immigration reform are often tagged as RINO’s (Republican in name only). Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsay Graham have been targeted by the right, for supporting common sense, immigration reform.

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, for example, lambastes Graham as ‘Lindsay Grahamnisty‘. Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, calls immigration reform ‘shamnisty’. While former Congressman Tom Tancredo has made anti-immigration reform his credo.

The fracturing of the Republican-Hispanic coalition, that once helped sweep George W. Bush to office, festered after Obama become president.

But no singular action added insult to injury than the right’s opposition to the first Hispanic nominated to the Supreme Court.

Sonia Sotomayor’s qualifications would have nominated her to every Supreme Court vacancy of the last one-hundred years.

Yet the right’s opposition to her nomination displayed their irrational thought process. Sotomayor was labeled a ‘racist’ by partisan right-wingers. Some even suggested that her nomination would undermine the US legal system.

But Republican’s opposition to Sotomayor’s nomination will not be forgotten by Hispanic voters.

Enter immigration reform. Once again the right finds itself on the wrong side of history on a major issue. But ignorant rhetoric delivered forth by some on the right has supplanted logical debate. Words matter. And the fiery rhetoric of the right has consequences.

According to the National Hispanic Media Coalition:

“The annual Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Hate Crimes Statistics Report released yesterday documents the continued rise of crimes that police report are motivated by bias against Hispanics. In 2007, local police reported to the FBI that there were 830 victims of anti-Hispanic crimes in 595 incidents around the nation.”

The NHMC also highlighted some disturbing trends involving anti-Hispanic hate crimes:

“…In 2007, Hispanics comprised 61.7 percent of victims of crimes motivated by a bias toward the victims’ ethnicity or national origin. In 2004, the comparable figure was 51.5 percent. Since 2003, the number of both victims of anti-Hispanic crimes and incidents increased by nearly 40 percent.”

Understating what fuels such violence is a disservice to the Hispanic community. Violence, as an expression of political grievance, is cowardly and nonsensical. And must be rejected even by those who oppose immigration reform.

“Hispanics are under assault in America’s neighborhoods,” stated MALDEF President and General Counsel John Trasviña. “Heightened anti-immigrant sentiment fueled by cable and radio talk show hosts, coupled with local police efforts to enforce federal immigration law, leaves members of our communities more in danger with less protection than ever before. The FBI report makes the enactment of comprehensive immigration reform more critical to our community’s safety and the nation’s future…”

I concur.

Sources: NHMC.org

My personal journey towards reason is an ongoing, liberating, endeavor. Reason, as I pursue it, and know it to be true, exists in centrism. The middle ground, where the vast majority dwell, is not the barren landscape of uncertainty and indecisiveness, some consider it to be.

While the shackles of partisan politics restrain the partisan faithful, centrists toil in pragmatism and ideas. But the partisan divide has further widened, souring, in the process, the reasonable middle.

Last months health care debate revealed the true nature of American politics today. Warring factions, from both sides of the political spectrum, supplanted debate for chaotic anger. Civility is now an extinct relic of the past. What predominates now is confrontational vitriol delivered forth by sputtering partisans.

Today, around the country, protesters, partially egged on by high profiled talkers, are uniting as a force of opposition.

Witnessing this was an eye opening experience for me. The rabid state of political debate today is too narrow of a road for my centrist ideals. I’m not liberal enough for the left, nor conservative enough for the right.

Many voters, like me, find themselves in the reasonable middle. Often banished from the outer fringes of left-right partisanship. But we’re not alone.

Our founding fathers spoke eloquently against partisan based divisions. They urged Americans to be free, individual thinkers. Their words still resonate today:

“I was no party man myself, and the first wish of my heart was, if parties did exist, to reconcile them.” – George Washington.

“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.” – John Adams.

“In politics, as in chess, the man who holds the center holds a position of unbeatable strength.” – Arthur Larson.

Partisanship will continue to hold sway in American politics. But its preeminence can be challenged by pragmatic offerings. Centrists, unlike liberals and conservatives, are willing to engage in robust debate without resorting to bickering and anger.

So far, at this moment in time, my journey as a common sense centrist has widened my political perspective. We might not all agree or think alike; but certainly, we are all Americans.

Sources: Independent Nation: How Centrism Can Change America. – By: John Avlon.

Congress voted. Democrats cheered. Republicans jeered. And the American people, well, watched. President Obama’s ambitious health care overhaul is now a reality. After a year of partisan bickering, political infighting, and organized protests that resulted in the creation of the tea party movement; liberalism finally prevailed.

Ironically, the ascendancy of liberalism was a cloak and dagger affair. During the 2008 presidential election, then Senator Obama, aided by his youth and insouciance, veiled himself in the comfortable one size fits all centrist overcoat. He spoke of bipartisan cooperation. He lambasted the politics of yesteryear. He lampooned the vices of cynicism and exalted the virtues of change. It was the perfect soufflé, one that was easily spoonfed to the disillusioned masses. And in the end, the shrewdness of a gifted politician superseded the stubbornness of a war hero.

Despair is a blinding force that supplants common sense for emotional comfort. After eight years of Bushism, the American people, tired of quasi-conservatism, turned to presumed centrism. Ordinarily, the astuteness of voters would have looked beyond the tear inducing speeches of a gifted orator. But not this time. In the absence of soulful syntax, soaring rhetoric supplanted experience. No one wanted experience. Everyone wanted change.

That change was personified in Obama. He was too good to be true. Too perfect to be real. But his messianic vision of bipartisan cooperation converted most, if not all, of the disgruntled masses. He was the everyman if you so wanted him to be. He was the intellectual if you so fancied such personality. He was a willing lump of clay for you to mold and shape. He was whatever you wanted him to be.

And here we are. Watching helplessly as one party bypasses the will of the people for their own political ambitions. Earlier today, House speaker Nancy Pelosi, gavel in hand, marched with fellow democrats, on their way to vote, smiling with incandescent glee, and ignoring those who opposed their ambitions. Protestors could be heard in the background, shouting “kill the bill”, as the house leadership made their way to vote. Again, not acknowledging the voices of dissent.

But a storm is simmering beneath the surface. Slowly taking shape. The winds of change will once again blow. And voters will be energized. They will make their way to voting booths across the country and be heard.

The ignored masses are angry. And they promise to deliver their verdict eight months from today on election day. The loudest form of expression is voting. And voting booths across the country will soon open.

Mike Huckabee’s interview with Michelle Obama sealed the deal for me. It wasn’t the questions or the effervescent smile of the first lady that grabbed my attention. Don’t get me wrong, the content of the interview was first rate. But beyond the clichéd niceties and sincere admiration, dwelled character and leadership. Those unassuming qualities that are often mistaken for inexperience and dullness.

The virtues of a leader are often manifested in times of turbulence and uncertainty. While many presidential aspirants, and high profiled talkers engage in verbal disputes, Huckabee practices what he preaches. Civility. His quiet conversion into presidential front runner is reason enough to assume that voters, like me, are reconsidering Huckabee.

A recent Public Policy Poll shows:

“Mike Huckabee doing best in a hypothetical 2012 match versus President Obama: 45% Huckabee versus 44% Obama.”

The poll also highlights that Huckabee is the only Republican strong enough to unseat Obama in 2012. No other Republican comes close to defeating Obama. Not Palin, not Romney, not even Petraeus. Romney, the presumptive nominee, is flying high thanks to the support of the party establishment.

It’s no secret that Republicans tend to nominate their party’s runner- up. In 2008, Romney was the runner-up. In 2000, McCain was the runner up. See the pattern?

But Huckabee is becoming increasingly popular with grassroots voters. While Palin battles it out with the far left, and while Romney struggles to reach weary voters, Huckabee works on cultivating an every man image through his talk show on Fox News. It is a humanizing process that has endeared voters to the former governor. Likeability has never been a factor for Huckabee.

During the 2008 campaign, Huckabee’s sunny demeanor won him supporters from both sides of the political spectrum. His refusal to engage in negative tactics during the campaign was a rarity. His deliverance of one line zingers with a smile was classic. And his jam sessions with various musicians was Clinton-like enough to attract some democrats.

But Huckabee’s viability could be overshadowed by the likes of Palin and Romney. Two media superstars who currently dominate the political landscape.

It’s true that Huckabee lacks the star power of Palin and the name recognition of Romney, but his brand is quickly rising. His moderate-conservative streak is the antidote to what ails politics today; partisan gridlock. His support among African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans is a concrete fact. As Governor of Arkansas, Huckabee opposed legislation that would have denied illegal immigrants state benefits. He also

“appointed over 350 African-Americans to boards and commissions while governor,” according to the Digital Journal.

Huckabee embodies the true spirit of conservatism. His focus on people and how government policy can impact their lives is the essence of conservatism. It’s this very focus that has driven many on the right to label Huckabee a pseudo-conservative. The heart of conservatism is the individual. And that individual’s right to self-determination. Conservatism has been tarnished by corporate greed. Sadly during the Bush era the individual diminished as corporations expanded exponentially.

What is needed now more than ever is conservatism of old. And Huckabee most resembles that kind of conservatism.

Source: Public Policy Polling, Digital Journal, Fox News.

Sarah Palin is a phenomena. Her palm scribbling last weekend, was a carefully crafted political strategy, meant to further widened her grassroots appeal. The strategy seemed to work, much to the chagrin of her detractors. Today, caricatures depicting Palin as a simplistic oaf, abound, uninhibited, in media circles. But some political heavy hitters have looked beyond the caricatures and found a formidable leader in waiting.

Washington Post liberal columnist David Broder, sounded the alarm on Palin’s surging formidability by offering this warning:

“The snows that obliterated Washington last week interfered with many scheduled meetings, but they did not prevent the delivery of one important political message: Take Sarah Palin seriously.”

Broder sees Palin for what she is. A capable, ambitious, politician, with the ability to use the media for her personal gain:

“Her lengthy Saturday night keynote address to the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville and her debut on the Sunday morning talk show circuit with Fox News’ Chris Wallace showed off a public figure at the top of her game — a politician who knows who she is and how to sell herself.”

Similar sentiments were expressed by another writer who openly marveled at Palin’s media savvy.

Time Magazine columnist Joe Klein, another liberal, ventured beyond the typical media coverage of Palin and deciphered her marketing strategy:

“Palin hits the same mystic chords as Clinton. A woman who goes to war against the 19-year-old boy who knocked up her daughter and then posed for Playgirl is far more comprehensible to most Americans than deficit spending is. In her Fox interview with Chris Wallace the day after her Nashville speech, Palin said she’d been focusing more on “current events” since she quit as governor of Alaska. She quickly corrected herself and said “national issues,” but she probably shouldn’t have: current events is American for “policy.” It is the high school term of art for the hour each week when students are forced to study the state of the world. Palin’s great strength is that the vernacular, rather than focus-group language, is her default position. At the end of the interview, Wallace asked what role she wanted to play in the country’s future. “Well, first and foremost, I want to be a good mom,” she replied. And then, in closing, Wallace asked, “Can I get a ‘You betcha’ out of you?”

When Palin walked onstage last weekend to deliver her speech to the tea party masses, she intentionally waved with both hands. Oddly enough this was ignored by the media. And thus her strategy was overlooked. This is the brilliance of Palin. Common sense dictates that anyone with scribbled notes on their palm would do much to keep their hand hidden. Not Palin. Because it was all intentional. Palin wanted her scribbled palm to be noticed. And it was. Immediately after her speech a media storm erupted and Palin once again dominated news coverage. But her intended audience was not only the media but also her fervent fans. There was an underlying message delivered that day which was ironically lost on the media.

Some liberal talkers dismissed Palin as an ignorant, conservative neophyte with no semblance of intelligence. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, for example, derided Palin as an:

“Empty vessel” with “nothing going on mentally.”

White House press Secretary Robert Gibbs, publicly mocked Palin during a press briefing by scribbling crib notes on his palm.

This was exactly what Palin wanted to happen. She feeds off of contempt. It riles her supporters and legitimizes her ‘average joe’ image. Palin isn’t worried about polls at the moment, why should she? Her focus now is on her image. She is recasting herself as a populist alternative. Palin’s strategy is simple—-anger the left and ignite the right. She is riding the tidal wave that has risen and swung against the White House. Whether she can ride the tidal wave all the way to the presidency is yet to be seen.

Palin is a superstar. She draws crowds. She sells books. And she delivers high ratings. But it’s not enough to become president. Voters want practical solutions to their problems. Something Palin has yet to offer. Vague speeches infused with generalities will only go so far. Criticizing the Obama administration for their liberal policies is an incomplete strategy. Politicians win elections when they offer better alternatives than their opponents. And conservatism is certainly a better alternative than liberalism. But simply running against something, as Palin often does, is not a winning formula in a general election.

Liberalism has been rejected by most Americans. Polls indicate that more voters call themselves conservatives than liberals. Pragmatism dictates that running as a conservative while offering common sense solutions is a winning strategy. Palin must decide what kind of superstar she wants to be—-a celebrity or a politician.

Sources: Politico, Huffington Post, Time Magazine, Washington Post, MSNBC.

Conservatism’s ascendancy into the mainstream consciousness of America, has been confirmed by the rise of a cable news channel. Fox News, the affable antagonist of liberalism, has become the voice of the disenchanted. Its preeminence is irrefutable, its influence undisputable. Fox News’ dominance over its rivals is a concrete, objective fact. It’s all in the numbers.

A recent Public Policy poll found that:

“Almost half of all Americans (49%) surveyed in the poll of 1,151 registered voters said they trusted Fox News.”

This percentage put Fox News ten points ahead of every other news network. Traditional networks, with their antiquated reverence for news anchors, were given surprisingly lesser votes of confidence. According to the poll:

“39% said they trusted Fox’s great rival CNN, and vastly more than the credibility ratings of the traditional news networks ABC News (31%), CBS News (32%) and NBC News (35%).”

American’s trust in Fox News has translated into ratings for the network. It’s a phenomena that has confounded critics of the right-leaning network. But the numbers speak for themselves.

According to Nielson Media Research:

“In primetime for the month of January, Fox News Channel (FNC) beat CNN and MSNBC combined in total viewers (2.4 million) and the [demographics] (637,000).”

Fox News’ investment in opinionated personalities has propelled the network into the ratings stratosphere. Bill O’Reilly averages 3.81million viewers while his chief rival MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann averages 1.01 million viewers. Sean Hannity averages 2.88 million viewers while CNN’s Larry King averages 930,000 viewers and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow averages 876,000 viewers. Greta Van Susteren averages 2.43 million viewers while CNN’s Anderson Cooper averages 906,000 viewers.

Fox News has surpassed all others on three fronts. Trust, confidence and ratings. But the network has been further legitimized by an unlikely foe—-the Obama Administration. A few months ago the White House decided to take on Fox News in what was deemed a losing battle. The Obama administration’s absurd war with a popular cable news channel backfired and made heroic conduits of the networks leading personalities.

Back in September, President Obama gave interviews to all the leading news networks but snubbed Fox News by refusing to appear on Chris Wallace’s program. Obama’s advisor Valerie Jarrett added insult to injury when she told CNN that Fox News was a biased network. But the mudslinging continued when White House Communications Director Anita Dunn told CNN:

“Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party.”

Fox News has been denounced as a pseudo-news network hell bent on destroying the current administration. If this is true than why does the network enjoy the confidence of the American people? There is a clear disconnect here. Liberal elites often share their views on sympathetic networks such as: CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and NBC; the latter becoming their temple for self-aggrandizement. With astuteness they opine using overly liberal euphemisms, delivered forth to the select few. Their dialect is purposely designed for an exclusive group within the larger population. They speak for the ‘educated class’. The opinions of the majority is harshly dismissed as naïve and amateurish. Consider the following. During Sarah Palin’s book tour, MSNBC operatives tartly dismissed Palin supporters as uneducated simpletons.

The everyman image that Fox News wears has been instrumental in forging bonds of trust with viewers. Aberrant arrogance is discarded for grassroots intellectualism. The majority are the exclusive enclave minority while the select few are the oligarchical arbitrators of power. Within the political landscape the ‘educated class’ governs; but outside the boundaries of elitism, where the everyman dwells, the ‘majority class’ yearn for self-reliance and individual freedom. Fox News speaks to the yearning of the ‘majority class’. When thousands took to the streets under tea party banners and excoriated the expansion of government; mainstream networks denounced them. Liberal elitists pontificated from within the high towers of CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and NBC with dismissive sarcasm. But among the masses, alongside the protestors, listening, was Fox News. And thus a bond was forged in battle.

Fox News has become the center of gravity in a spinning political world. Obama’s attempt to shift influence to like minded conglomerates was an abject, catastrophic, failure. He was the singular force that tightened the bond between the ‘majority class’ and Fox News. Now, with disillusionment, he must contend with a conservative majority being governed by a liberal minority. While a former governor, with an everyman image, rises in influence, among the ‘majority class’, waits for her turn to govern.

 Sources: The National Ledger, Politico, Nielson Media Research, Associated Press, Public Policy Poll, Broadcasting and Cable.

Partisan rabble-rousers on the left and right of the political spectrum have kneecapped dialogue in our country. With arrogant austerity fueled by their vainglorious agenda, they have managed to widened our political differences. Gone are the days of policy laced debates centered on civility and purpose. Gone are the intellectual tribunes of depth and coherence. Gone are the logic based arguments that once ushered in the era of industriousness and commonality. But recent remarks by glorified talkers might just be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Conservative radio icon Rush Limbaugh, used the disaster in Haiti to criticize President Obama. He said:

“Everything this president sees is a political opportunity, including Haiti, and he will use it to burnish his credentials with minorities in this country and around the world, and to accuse Republicans of having no compassion.”

MSNBC liberal anchor Keith Olbermann, unleashed a torrent of illogical rants against senate candidate Scott Brown. He said:

“In Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex nude model, teabagging, supporter of violence against women, and against politicians with whom he disagrees.”

But inglorious uttering’s have also been delivered by elected officials. South Carolina’s Republican Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer, raised eyebrows when he likened poor Americans to animals. He said:

“My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed! You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that.”

Florida Democratic Representative Alan Grayson, said the Republican health care plan was:

“Don’t get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly.”

Outside the menagerie of exclusivity are the voices of reason that dwell among the people. While political talkers battle it out, millions of Americans struggle under the weight of a growing government. Representatives are too busy defending their honor to notice their drowning constituents. National leaders and journalists are at odds with each other and no one is left to inform the uninformed. Paris is burning but the watch tower guards are focused on political disputes. Civil dialogue is now a forgotten relic. We are a nation divided with no common ground to grasp.

Americans are angrier than ever. Listen to the conversations taking place around dinner tables and water coolers around the country. Something is stirring beneath the surface. Yet cable news and talk radio continue to inflate itself with shouting matches and sarcastic rants. Political dialogue without bombast is often ignored and discarded. What happened to intellectual debate? What happened to dissecting policy?

Stitching together incoherent arguments in hopes of tarnishing a senate candidate’s prospects is nefarious. Taking advantage of another country’s tragedy to score political points is thoughtless. Purposely creating controversy to increase your campaign war chest is selfish. The foundations of this country are crumbling under the weight of unmeasured arrogance.

The remedy to our problem is simple. We must restore honest, open, and civil, debate. The talkers need to become listeners. Washington is now a symbol for coarse disorganization. Viewers feed the monster every time they view shouting matches. Listeners feed the monster every time they listen to angry tirade.

We have allowed the loudest few to dictate our democracy. We have hammered in the bolts that hold up the pedestals of the brash. It is time to wake up. It is time to intellectually engage and inject civility into our political dialogue.

Sources: Huffington Post, CBS News, Politico, MSNBC, CNN.

Scott Brown’s Senate victory over Massachusetts attorney general Martha Coakly, reverberated all the way to the White House yesterday. It was an ominous sign to the Obama administration that something is stirring among the masses. In a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans 3-to-1—-independents were the Democrats waterloo. But lets consider the Democrats pride before their fall.

According to the Cook Political Report:

“Some 6.1 million Americans, the highest number in the post-World War II era, have been unemployed for 27 weeks or more.”

This after the Obama administration promised to quell the raising unemployment rate. Obama’s massive health care reform has also done much to rouse fear among the American people. The Heritage Foundation estimates that cost for health reform “could reach $1.6 trillion over ten years.” According to a Rasmussen Report poll, 38 percent of Americans support Obama’s health care reform while 56 percent oppose the plan. Despite these figures Democrats insist on overhauling health care without taking into account the concerns of Americans.

In less than one year liberalism has become the symbol for establishment politics. The outsider ideology that once crusaded against the ills of Bushism and cronyism is now the status quo. Once upon a time Obama campaigned under the banner of ‘openness’ and ‘transparency’. He derided those who operated under the cloak of darkness cutting back room deals. But Obama himself has recently backpedaled on a promise he made during his campaign to broadcast healthcare negotiations on C-span. And many on the left wonder why the tide of goodwill towards the politics of ‘hope and change’ has quickly soured and shriveled. But in the absence of coherent politics new alternatives emerge renewed with optimism. But before the rise comes the fire.

After the 2008 elections conservatism was dismissed as a narrow ideology for the narrow minded. Many on the left believed that the ‘educated class’ would rule for years uninterrupted while conservative simpletons toiled in the lower rungs of society. Pseudo-intellectuals lectured us on the evils of conservatism. While liberal pundits lamented the reddening of the Republican party. But conservatism will always be the logical alternative to liberalism.

Conservatism is experiencing a reawakening of sorts. More independents are crossing the threshold into conservatism. While Washington remains aloof to the realities of everyday Americans, a surge of populist anger simmers beneath the surface.

Americans are tired of politics as usual. But democracy always wins in the end. Republican wins in New Jersey, Virginia and now in Massachusetts show a hunger for common sense ideals. Now is not the time for the ‘educated class’ to lecture us on the virtues of big government. Or on the responsibilities of high taxes. Or on the logicalness of massive health care reform. Its time to listen to the American people.

Source: Cook Political Report, Rasmussen Poll, The Heritage Foundation, CNN, Time Magazine.