RE: Arlen Specter's New "Affiliation" Should Come as No Real Surprise

A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.

Arlen Specter becoming a democrat on paper does little, if anything, in regards to the balance of power on the Hill. Much like Joseph Lieberman becoming an Independent did little to change the balance of power when he made the switch. Specter will vote the same as he always has, especially on major issues where a Senator is responsible more to his constituents than his party. If there is an effect it will be on small issues in which he is whipped into voting with the party.

The real significance of the move is that it means that Democrats are now completely responsible for what happens over the next few years. They will reap the rewards or take the blame. There is nowhere left to hide. Republicans can no longer be blamed for obstructing "progress". Democrats, and liberals by and large, will now live and die by the value of their own ideas.

Republicans should be excited about this idea. The last time that liberals had this much control was in 1978. It was a miserable failure and gave birth to the Reagan Revolution. With the success of the Tea Parties and Obama's falling approval rating, it is fairly likely that Republicans will gain seats in the House and Senate in 2010, at least until you look at the numbers.

The House is wide open and if the Republicans are to make an serious movement, then it will be in the House. The Senate is not nearly as favorable. There are likely to be 10 Senate seats that will be seriously contested. Only four of those seats belong to Democrats. Two of the seats belong to Harry Reid and Chris Dodd. As unpopular as those two are amongst conservatives, they will probably be re-elected in their home states of Nevada and Connecticut. The third seat is Burris in Illinois, and I don't see Republicans picking up that seat in Obama's backyard. The only seat that Republicans can reasonably pick up is the seat in Colorado, and only if Ryan Frazier stays an "it" guy.

The problem is that the six contested Republican seats could all possibly fall. There are open seats in Florida, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Ohio. Florida and Ohio are toss ups, but both states voted Obama and neither state has a real solid Republican candidate. New Hampshire is very blue and will likely vote in a Democrat, and the Democratic candidate in Missouri has a very well known and respected family name, Robin Carnahan (she is Secretary of State in MO, her dad was governor, her mom was a Senator, and her brother is a Congressman).

Other problem seats for Republicans are in Louisiana and North Carolina. The Republican Senator in Louisiana, David Vitter, will have an uphill fight due to his involvement in a sex scandal. Sen. Richard Burr (R) will have a tough time in North Carolina. North Carolina voted for Obama, ousted Elizabeth Dole (R) in the last election, and voted in a Democrat as governor.

While it may be conventional logic, and the hopes of Republicans, that Americans will tire of Democratic control of Capitol Hill and the White House and vote in Republicans in 2010, the breakdown of the actual races does not match up with the logic, at least in the Senate.

In order for Republicans to not lose even more control of the Senate in 2010, there is going to have to be a dramatic shift to the right by Americans. Democrats are going to have to fail, and that fail is going to have to be epic. So epic that it will cause a real political shift in currently blue states. Democrats are going to have to prove completely inept while in power to cause such a dramatic shift, much like they did in 1978 and 1979.

Oh yeah, Republicans also have to find a charasmatic leader. Luckily, the last time Democrats were in total control, Republicans found that leader.

-The Banker

100 Days of Change

How do you like your change America?

A recent Rasmussen Poll indicates that you are split about that question. According to the poll from Rasmussen, Barrack Obama has an approval rating of 55% and a disapproval of 44%. Which is to say that he has polarized the nation.

President Obama deserves all of the credit in the world to President Obama for sticking to his principles. He has clearly been more concerned with his agenda for what he considers a better nation than he has with building political equity in order to remain in office. I don't think that anyone can credibly doubt the leadership or the conviction of the leader of the free world. Barrack Obama is an excellent leader.

The $64,000 question, or trillion dollar question in this case, that is the point of contention is decisive. Where is President Obama leading us? President Obama has been nothing short of the radical liberal that he was accused of being during the presidential campaign. The amazing thing about his time in office so far has been how liberal he has been on a consistent basis. It is this consistency that has caused his first 100 days to be so polarizing.

Each action he has taken will be viewed by those that share his ideology as an great accomplishment. At the same time, those actions will be viewed as attacks on the fundamental principles of America by those of a different ideology.

His pro-abortion action of reversing the Mexico City act, which allows tax dollars to be used to fund foreign abortions, is a victory for liberals and a abomination to conservatives. The same can be said for his decision to allow federal funding for the creation of new embryotic stem cells.

His Stimulus package is considered to be a wise move by liberals that will save the economy. Conservatives view it as an expansion of government, a waste of tax dollars, and a great burden to the future.

Liberals consider his foreign policy decisions have been right on with the emphasis on improved relations with our enemies. Conservatives are enraged that our president would be glad handing the likes of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong-il, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

There is his stance on the Missile Shield, Israel-Iran, Gitmo, taxes, universal health care, cap and trade, the federal budget, immigration, auto bailouts, government interference of banks and auto companies, free trade, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and his general outlook of America's impact on the world for the last 50 years.

On the issues above, liberals think he is a genius and conservatives think he is an idiot. It is not about one side or another being stupid, brainwashed by FoxNews, or drinking the Kool-Aid. It is simply that liberals and conservatives disagree on the fundamental values of our nation. When you have a president that is an extreme liberal, liberals are going to think he is the savior, and vice-versa.

At the end of the day we have a very liberal president. Liberals will think that he is great for it. Conservatives will think he is terrible for it. Thus we have a polarizing president and a divided nation.

The two big questions remaining are:

If Obama remains this liberal for the next year and a half, will there be more liberals or conservatives voting in the mid-term elections?

If Obama remains this liberal for the next three years, will there be more liberals or conservatives voting in 2012?

Only time will tell.

-The Banker

Uniting the States of America

The election is over. Barack Obama is our President-elect. Congratulations to Obama and all of his supports for a fantastic campaign, and for helping to make American history. America having its first African-American president is a source of pride as well as a testament to the progress we have made as a nation. In forty years, we have gone from African-Americans being unable to eat at certain restaurants to having an African-American as the leader of the free world. Not enough can be said about the millions of men and women that have helped pave the way for the progress that has been made and I can not begin to understand the joy being felt by African-Americans.

For the millions of Americans that did not vote for Obama, it is now time to respect the democratic process that we love and cherish as Americans. It is time to support our new president and do everything in our power to help him be the best president that he can be. That does not mean blindly following him, but it does mean giving him the respect owed to the president. No one should oppose Obama because he is a democrat. No one should hope that Obama fails for political or personal reasons. All Americans need to be united around our leader and support him in making our nation a better place.

However, that does not mean that Obama is above criticism. If an American disagrees with the decisions or the policies of Obama, then it is that person's right to voice the opposition. As long as the opposition is done with respect. For example, I am opposed to the idea of another stimulus package, so I will oppose Obama in instituting another stimulus package. I am not opposing Obama, I am opposing his policy and decision.

(On a side note, people need to stop being so disrespectful to President Bush. You can disagree with someone without being disrespectful. History will be the judge of his presidency, there is no need to heap insults on the man that has served our nation for the last eight years. The American people have voted in new leadership. Piling disdain on the Bush administration is in no way constructive for our country and makes those insulting him look like children ganging up to pick on the unpopular kid.)

As far as unity is concerned, our country would be better off if our political parties could work together. Unfortunately, neither party is willing to make the first step with any conviction. Speeches are words, and words can lie. Actions are different. One of the parties needs to act in a bipartisan manner instead of just criticize the other party for not being bipartisan. A huge step in the right direction would be for Americans to stop saying idiotic things like "I hate Nancy Pelosi" or "Sarah Palin is stupid". Until Americans get over making politics about people instead of making politics about ideas, then we aren't going to get any unity.

At this point, it would make the most sense for Republicans to make this gesture. The GOP is out of power and needs to make changes in order to change that. The GOP needs to spend the next two years working with Democrats to solve problems. The GOP needs to spend the next two years making its message about the issues and not the individuals in the Democratic party. The GOP needs to work with Democrats on fixing the economy, reforming the tax code, securing energy independence, and defeating terrorists. Bipartisan solutions that have the public in mind are the solutions that stand the test of time. Partisan solutions that are put in place in spite of the other party die as soon as power changes. We need our representatives to put common support behind the solutions for our nation. Americans are entitled to a government that is solution driven, not power driven.

People can rally around a common cause or a vision, as long as they don't hate each other.

-The Banker-