America isn’t “ONE SIZE FITS ALL”

When are the politicians in Washington going to get this message? When it comes to the disastrous and incredibly disingenuous Health Care Bill, it has taken a blunt hammer right between the eyes to get from the voters in Massachusetts to begin to get the message across. When one of the most double dealing and conniving politicians from Massachusetts, Barney Frank is in full retreat, saying about the health care bill: “…there is now no bill that I believe can pass or should pass”, perhaps it is time that our national representatives wake up and smell the roses. I realize that the utterances of Barney Frank are more for personal salvation than in any way a true reflection of his core beliefs, but I sincerely hope the good independent voters of Massachusetts continue their house cleaning and replace him this November.

It is equally important for the legislators of both parties to understand that the voice of Massachusetts is the voice of the people across this great nation. We, the majority of Americans are angry at the arrogance of legislators such as Barney, Harry, Chris dodd and Nancy. We the People are gaining a voice and have come to understand that the power of the people can trump the perceived power of the Fed. The voices of the Tea Party protestors for the past year and the TownHall usurpers last summer are the true voice of America and this voice is getting louder. This voice will become stronger during the 2010 election cycle and reach epic proportions during the 2012 election cycle.

The Federal Government, currently looking to increase the Federal Debt ceiling does not understand that we really are watching and fully comprehend the power of our vote. These “inside the Beltway” politicians from both parties are going to find that the voters of this country are rapidly coming to understand that "one size does not fit all" and legislation by caveat from inside Washington directly violates the terms of the 10th amendment to the constitution. We the People understand this. To those progressives amongst you, I realize that a case can be made that the 10th amendment has been toast since before Theodore Roosevelt, that some have even said since Lincoln and the Civil War. I personally think we the people of these United States fully understand that the representatives from California and Nevada don’t necessarily represent the values of the citizens of Minnesota or Mississippi. The legislators from Texas don’t represent the values of those residing in New York. It is time, nay beyond the time, to drastically limit Federal power and return the power of legislation to the States where the people can once again determine how they should be rightfully governed on a local level.

The morning after Massachusetts

I watched Brown victory speech last night and noted that his first comment was thanks to the independent voters who elected him. In fact, I believe, if I am quoting him right, he made the statement immediately thereafter that the independent voters are the largest voting block in the country.I really don't think anyone except the most partisan can claim this as a victory for the Republican Party. Even Carl Rove doesn't claim this as a Republican Party victory. It truly is a victory for the engaged, energized and strengthening block of independent voters. Without the support and help of the Tea Party Express and the independent voters, Brown would not have won. I would go one step further and say that Brown could have (and probably should have, IMO) run an independent campaign and won.One fear I have is that the Republican party is going to claim this as a major victory for the party rather than see it for what it is -- a vote against the "politics as usual" in Washington -- by both parties.

Recently when the argument in favor of a 3rd party was made and that the Republican party, the party of Lincoln, was originally a third party, the counter argument was made that at the time of Lincoln there were probably less than 125 million citizens while now there are about 350 million. The respondent was making this argument in support of the need to maintain a two party system. I don't think anyone would say that all Americans have similar views, nor do they vote the same way, so I'm a bit confused by this, I would think that the argument better supports the theory that because we have more than double the number of citizens today than the last time a major 3rd party became mainstream we should not have 3, but 4 or more major parties.

You may note that the news wires are rapt this morning with announcements that Brown won by a "landslide" or a "huge margin". FIVE, let me state this again FIVE points. This is considered a landslide. When a 5 point margin indicates a landslide, it seems to prove the point that very few people across this country think the same way and that more and more they are finally making their choice based upon the issues rather than the party affiliation.

How can anyone argue that 2 parties can effectively represent the width and breadth of the American citizenry? As shown by Browns election to the Massachusetts "Camelot" seat in the senate, it is the independent voter who makes the final decision in America and it is the independent voter who going to save the Republic not the Republican party, the Republic. Politics of the party -- whether Republican or Democrat are rapidly becoming an anachronism.

I don’t know whether anyone noticed the federal suit which was filed by Eric Holder before last years election against Kinston, N.C. The basis of the suit was to enjoin Kinston from removing party affiliation from the candidates names on the ballot. The good citizens of Kinston were in favor of voting for a candidate based upon his/her core issues and beliefs, not his or her party affiliation. Holder, sought (and was successful) in obtaining an injunction against Kinston on the basis that the voters would not know who to vote for if they didn’t know which party the candidate represented. IIRC, both the Republican and Democratic parties as well as the ACLU offered "friends of the Court" briefs in favor of Holders injunction. Sure makes one wonder.

Like I've been saying for the last year, sit back and watch because we are on the edge of a major paradigm shift in American politics and it's going to be an interesting show.

Today, on the date of the special election in Massachusetts, I want to make the point that the political paradigm is changing. It is not the Democratic voters who elected Obama and it will not be the Republican voters who elect Scott Brown today. It is the non affiliated independent voters who are determining the outcome of the elections and like it or not, they (we) will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

In fact, I will go out on a limb and make the case, as I have in the past, it is going to be the independent voter, gaining strength through the evolution of instantaneous communication, who are going to save the Republic from implosion.

We're not happy with what is happening on the national political front -- with either party -- we're energized, we're organizing and we're beginning to make our presence known. It doesn't take a genius to see this, you only have to observe what happened with Ron Paul and Obama during the 2008 cycle, with McDonnell during the 2009 Va. Gubernatorial race and with Scott Brown during the last 90 days to see the independents fingerprints all over the electoral process. Combine that with the remarkable showing of the (admittedly poor) independent candidate in Upstate NY. and to a lesser degree the NJ governors race and you can track the growing influence of the independent voter.

I had a very interesting breakfast meeting with a couple of friends this morning. One is an extremely rare and intelligent businessman who is rare because he is both Jewish and a Republican voter. Much of our discussion centered around politics, Scott Brown's campaign and my belief in and support of the independent movement. One of the most interesting points which I came away with is this: As a block, Jewish people are the second largest group of Democratic voters, averaging more than 75% democrat -- not because they necessarily agree with the Democratic platform, but because they historically and I might add, very emotionally, oppose their perception of the Republican platform. They're not strict democrats, they are strict anti-republicans.

If this block is offered a third alternative, one lets say, which espouses compassionate conservatism, without the Republican label, it was opined by these esteemed gentlemen, that a significant percentage of the Jewish vote would fall to the third option.

One thing which has become apparent over the last year -- our short term emotional experiment with Obama is over and our 50 year experiment with the growth of professional politicians is rapidly on its way out -- if we want the Republic to survive.