ThePoliticalReview

Last week, Florida Governor Charlie Crist announced that he will be taking a page out of Joe Lieberman’s playbook by running as an independent for Florida’s open senate seat. This news came as a big blow to the GOP as they attempt to retake Congress, as Marco Rubio will have a much tougher time beating Crist in the general election. It appears that Crist will siphon votes from Rubio and the Democrat, Kendrick Meek. Current polls have either Crist or Rubio up by a few points, so the race will come down to the wire. Fortunately for the GOP, it seems like the ultraliberal Kendrick Meek will not be a huge factor in this race.

Crist’s betrayal to the GOP was painful, but it is worse than imagined. Crist has more than a good shot of winning the election, and his increasing liberal tendencies may end up resulting with Crist caucusing with the Democrats. Crist acknowledged that he may even end up voting for a Democrat to be the majority leader. On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Crist claimed, “I might not vote for either [a Democrat or a Republican]. I'm going to vote for who I think would be best for the people of Florida. And if that happens to be a Democrat, so be it.” If Crist ends up winning, there is more than a likely chance that we see Crist prefer his more recent liberal policies than his past right-leaning ones. Many believed that if Crist won, he would still align himself with Republicans.

Crist’s betrayal leaves everyone in a tough situation. Hopefully this time, Crist won’t achieve the same success that Lieberman did.

Gavin Frisch can be contacted at gavin7f [at] verizon.net

In my previous article, I discussed why Republican front runners, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and Mike Huckabee are not fit to be the face of the Republican Party. They have been too scarred by the media and their previous legislation. Republicans need to win the independent vote by significant margins. Independents, the largest growing electorate, tends to have fiscally conservative and socially liberal beliefs, so Republicans need a candidate that has the ability to attract attention to their fiscal policies, rather than social issues. There are options at the Republicans' disposal to attract independent votes, and both of them come from the same state.

There has been a lot of media coverage recently about Florida governor Charlie Crist, who is falling behind in the GOP primary. There have been reports that Crist is considering running for the US senate as an independent. If he decides to run as a Republican, however, he could be a future candidate for the presidency despite a likely primary loss in a few months. Deciding not to mount an independent bid would please Republican leaders. As a very moderate Republican, Crist could be successful at winning over independents. Furthermore, Crist is very popular in Florida, which would most likely result in the GOP winning Florida’s electoral votes. Although conservatives would likely support other candidates in the primaries, he would win the conservative vote in the general election because of the increasing displeasure with the radically liberal Obama agenda.

The other good option to be the face of the Republican Party is Crist’s primary challenger, Marco Rubio. Rubio would be a good candidate to lead the GOP in 2012 for a variety of reasons. First, Rubio contradicts the perception that Republicans are the party of old, white men. Rubio brings youth and diversity to the Republican Party, and his presence on the GOP’s ticket would help win the Hispanic vote. Rubio, a staunch conservative, is very popular with the base of the Republican Party, and could focus on fiscal issues to win over independents. Also, Rubio has not been on the national scene for long so he hasn’t been scarred by the ferocious liberal media. Like Crist, Rubio would increase the Republican chances of retaking Florida in the next presidential election. Rubio, if he wins the open senate, could take a page out of the Obama playbook and run for president before his record becomes too tarnished.

Both of Florida’s GOP senate candidates would be quality choices to lead the Republicans in 2012. Crist would be incredibly successful winning over independents, while Rubio would hopefully provide Obamaesque energy to the Republican Party. Winning Florida’s electoral votes would also become much easier, so the Republicans could spend their campaign money in other tossup states. Republicans would be wise to rally behind Rubio or Crist in 2012, as they both have a shot of beating Obama in the general election.

Gavin Frisch can be contacted at gavin7f [at] verizon.net

A big concern that Republicans have to address if they are to unseat President Obama in 2012 is that they do not have a candidate that can be the face of the party. Many polls have a generic Republican candidate running against Obama in a hypothetical presidential race, so choosing the right candidate can make a big difference.This leads to the question of who it should be. Politicians such as former governors Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, and Mitt Romney are the names thrown out for possible presidential contenders in 2012, but for varying reasons, none of them make the cut.

Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, has some fairly large blemishes on his record that do not make him the best option to be the face of the Republican Party. Although social conservatives have strongly favorable opinions of him, moderates are put off by his very religious views. A current CNN opinion poll has Huckabee trailing Obama by nine percentage points amongst 900 registered voters. Also, the clemency and pardon controversies have left scarred Huckabee.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, is also not the best person to be the face of the GOP come 2012. Like Huckabee, Romney significantly trails Obama in opinion polls. Romney was accused during the 2008 presidential campaign of changing his political views on many social issues, although he always opposed same-sex marriage. As governor, Romney implemented a health care law that requires all Massachusetts citizens to buy health insurance. This reform is looked upon unfavorably by conservatives, which hurt his chances to win over the base of the Republican Party. His religion is also viewed in an unfavorable light.

Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska, is perhaps the worst candidate to lead the Republican Party. Although many conservative have favorable opinions of Palin, she trails Obama by thirteen percentage points. Sixty nine percent of voters claim that Palin is not qualified to be president. Her frequent gaffs on the campaign trail in addition to the common perception that she is unintelligent make her a poor candidate to lead Republicans in 2012

Huckabee, Romney, and Palin are therefore all bad choices to lead the Republican Party. Republicans need to find a candidate who has not been severely scarred by the media and past legislation, much like Obama during his campaign for the presidency. Once Republicans can find an unblemished, charismatic candidate to be the face of their party, they will have a strong chance to unseat Obama in 2012.

Gavin Frisch can be contacted at gavin7f [at] verizon.net

The Republican National Committee Chairman, Michael Steele, has come under a lot of scrutiny from not only the media, but the base of the Republican Party. It is evident that he has made his mistakes, but critics are being too tough on him. Yes Steele is in charge of the $2000 given to donors to be spent at the bondage club in Hollywood (which was paid back), and yes he has spent lavish amounts money on limousines and hotels, but the liberal media has displayed these events with exaggeration. Critics from the base of the Republican Party fail to look at the positive results that have resulted from Steele’s leadership.

Steele was elected chairman in January of 2009 after 6 rounds of voting. Since then, he has been behind the victories of Christopher Christie in New Jersey, Bob McDonnell in Virginia, and Scott Brown in Massachusetts. These political victories, especially Brown winning the seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy, are nothing short of momentous. Furthermore, the GOP has recruited many quality candidates that have put the party in position to make large gains in the midterm elections. Regardless of Steele’s spending habits, his leadership led to a pick up of 2 governor seats and the end of the filibuster proof Democratic Senate.

Another one of Steele’s actions, attacking conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh, is clearly controversial and misinformed, but the resulting dispute clearly shows that his critics are acting too harshly. Rush responded to Steele’s attacks by claiming that it appears that Steele is "obsessed with seeing to it President Obama succeeds." Limbaugh goes on to say "I frankly am stunned that the chairman of the Republican National Committee endorses such an agenda… I have to conclude that he does, because he attacks me for wanting it to fail." Limbaugh makes a flawed conclusion and a critical gaff in attacking Steele. First, Limbaugh seems to illogically conclude that Steele supports Obama’s agenda. It is fairly obvious through Steele’s frequent criticisms that he is opposed to Obama’s agenda. Limbaugh’s monumental gaff, however,  is claiming that he wants Obama’s agenda to fail. If Obama’s agenda fails, it will dig the country into a deeper hole. Although it is more that fair (and logical) to disagree with Obama’s agenda, Limbaugh should at least hope it succeeds in helping the country end the recession.

Attacks likes Limbaugh’s are unnecessary, even though Steele threw the first punch. The GOP needs to stop attacking Steele in order to raise money to catch up to the Democrats. They need to rally around him and focus on defeating the Democrats instead of each other. Alienating donors and supporters by causing a civil war would seriously hurt Republican chances of making substantial gains come November. Let Steele do his job; the Republican base needs to stop putting Steele in situations where he has to defend himself and keep their disagreements internal until it is time to elect a new chairman.

Gavin Frisch can be contacted at gavin7f [at] verizon.net

The Westboro Baptist Church, located in Topeka, is owed over thousands of dollars from the father of a dead marine. Members of the Church, led by Pastor Fred Phelps, routinely travel the country to picket the funerals of dead soldiers. The Church claims that U.S. military deaths are God’s way of punishing us for the “sin of homosexuality.” The marine, Matthew, was twenty years old when he died in 2006 while serving in Iraq. The father of the deceased marine, Albert Snyder, had sued the church back in 2007 and was granted almost eight million dollars. Westboro appealed the case to the U.S 4th Circuit Court of Appeals and it was overturned due to the violation of the Church’s 1st amendment rights. Furthermore, on Friday, the Court ruled that Snyder must pay over sixteen thousand dollars in court costs. Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly promised on Wednesday’s “The O’Reilly Factor” that he would pick up the entire tab. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case in order to address the issues of protection of the “sanctity and dignity of memorial and funeral services” as well as the first amendment issues of free speech and religion. Snyder has no plans to meet his financial obligations until hearing from the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court Case stipulates that there was malice. The question here is if there is a violation of freedom of speech and religion, as well as the laws addressing the protection of funeral services. The defendants claim that they are within the boundaries of the first amendment, and that this lawsuit was driven from emotions. The case, scheduled to be heard in the fall, will surely be an interesting and monumental one

The fees that Snyder owes to the Church are nothing short of an injustice. The Church protested his son’s funeral, as well as the funerals of many other soldiers, with malicious intent. The daughter of Pastor Fred Phelps, Shirley, recently stated that her church has picketed thousands of military funerals each year because of their belief that God is punishing soldiers who defend a country that tolerates and accepts homosexuality. There is no reason why Snyder should have to pay the Church who protested his son’s funeral. The “disturbed souls” (in the words of Bill O’Reilly) could not be more misguided. There is absolutely no logical explanation to picket the funerals of the brave men and women who keep this country safe because of the increasing acceptance of homosexuality. The Church, like everyone else, has the right to exercise freedom of speech, but slander is not free speech. Westboro has the right to exercise their freedom of speech, like other supremacist groups, but as long as it is not slander. They have the right to express their opinions on homosexuality just like you and I can. However, they need to reconsider their severely misguided approach: would God really want them to picket the funerals of people who have sacrificed their lives to keep them safe?

If you would like to learn more about this case, I encourage you to visit his website that honors his son and informs people of the Church’s wrongdoings, http://www.matthewsnyder.org. In addition, I encourage you to show your support for Snyder by joining the Facebook group, “I support Al Snyder in His fight against Westboro Baptist Church.”

Gavin Frisch can be contacted at gavin7f [at] verizon.net

The health care bill is headed back to the House for another vote in order to approve the Senate fixes. Since the House passed the bill a few days ago, Senate Republicans have offered numerous amendments in order to dispose of the bill. Knowing that the bill would not be disposed of, Republicans then offered amendments to fix many of the bill’s glaring flaws. Democrats are doing exactly what they have blasted Republicans for doing, they are attempting to vote against all Republican amendments in improve the bill.

What reason do the Senate Democrats have for voting down the Republican amendments that intend to strengthen the bill now that the Senate Parliamentarian agreed with Republicans on two issues, thus sending it back to the House regardless if the other amendments were passed? The simple answer is that Democrats had no good reason. The only thing bipartisan about this bill is the bipartisan opposition in both chambers of Congress. There is absolutely no logical reason to explain why Senate Democrats opposed an amendment to prohibit sex offenders from purchasing drugs such as Viagra. It can be said that Republicans are proposing these amendments to make the Democrats look bad for the 2010 elections, but they hardly need to.

It has been the Republicans that have been pushing for bipartisanship, but Democrats are obviously content on pushing through their own ultra liberal agenda. The Democrats are  the actual “party of no": they have continuously said no to bipartisanship, job creation, and most importantly, the American people.

Gavin Frisch can be contacted at gavin7f [at] verizon.net

Liberal bias in schools is finally being combated, as conservatives on the Texas Board of Education have recently approved a new curriculum. Academia has been skewed to the left, and conservatives are making controversial changes to even the playing field. A final vote will take place in May.

Conservatives claim that there is a liberal tone in school textbooks. Much more emphasis is given to liberal accomplishments, such as the New Deal and the Great Society, than conservative accomplishments. Other proposed changes include putting Confederate President Jefferson Davis on equal footing to Abraham Lincoln, valuing Republican political figures and philosophies in a higher regard, and lessening the importance of Thomas Jefferson.

Although some may deem these changes to be harsh, they are necessary. Schools clearly have a liberal bias, and students deserve to know both sides of history. More importantly, parents have the right to decide what information should be taught to their kids. If Texas parents don’t like the curriculum changes, they can vote new people onto the Board of Education.

Gavin Frisch can be contacted at gavin7f [at] verizon.net

History has shown that the midterm elections have benefitted the opposing party and this year looks to be more of the same. With the recent animosity toward Democrats, as well as the failures of Martha Coakley, Jon Corzine, and Creigh Deeds, the future looks bright for the GOP. There has been talk that the Republicans may even retake the Senate. With eight months until elections, anything can happen.

Let’s take a look at what needs to happen for the Republicans to retake the Senate. Republicans need to pickup ten Democratic seats without losing any of their own in order to reach the majority level of 51 senators. All though this may seem like a long shot, victories of this margin have happened before.

In order for Republicans to get the majority in the midterms, they must retain all of their seats. Of their eighteen seats up for reelection in November, a few may have tight races. Kit Bond’s retirement makes Missouri a toss-up. The vacancies caused by the retirements of New Hampshire senator Judd Gregg, Ohio senator George Voinovich, and Kentucky senator Jim Bunning could mean potential, if doubtful, losses for Republicans. For Republicans to retake the Senate, they must not lose any of their current seats.

The Republicans need to win ten of the Democrats’ eighteen seats that are up for re-election in the fall. The recent retirements of Evan Bayh and Byron Dorgan make Indiana and North Dakota are likely Republican pickups, while the retirement of Chris Dodd has squashed Republican chances in Connecticut. The former seats of Barack Obama and Joe Biden are also open seats, as interim senators Roland Burris and Ted Kaufman have decided not to seek reelection. The Illinois seat is viewed as a tossup, as moderate Republican Mark Kirk will face off against Alexi Giannoulias in the heavily Democratic state. However, the open seat in Delaware is viewed to be a likely Republican gain, as Joe Biden’s son, Beau, decided not to challenge Representative Mike Castle for the seat. Democrats' retirements should result in three or four Republican gains.

Some incumbent Democrats may do their party some good if they decide to retire, like Dodd. Arkansas senator Blanche Lincoln, Pennsylvania senator Arlen Specter, and Majority Leader Harry Reid face uphill battles against relatively unknown or underfunded Republicans. Republicans have very good chances to capture these three seats, as well as decent chances to win Michael Bennet’s seat in Colorado. These four races should all turn red by November.

Overall, nine democratic seats should turn into seven or eight Republican pickups. The other half of the Democrats’ seats up for reelection is either safe holds or unlikely Republican pickups. Senators Chuck Schumer of New York, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Ron Wyden of Oregon are virtually guaranteed reelection, whereas Patty Murray of Washington and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin could face tough challenges if more prominent Republicans decide to challenge them. Barbara Boxer of California and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York have small but noticeable leads over their Republican challengers, but could potentially be vulnerable.

If elections were held today, therefore, chances are Republicans would pick up seven or eight seats and this would leave the Democrats with either 51 or 52 seats. With plenty of time until the elections, anything could happen. If we do have more of the same, a Republican majority in the Senate seems unlikely, but it is certainly possible.

Gavin Frisch can be contacted at gavin7f [at] verizon.net

Evan Bayh, a two term Democratic Senator from Indiana, recently announced that he will not be seeking reelection in 2010. Bayh is the 3rd Democratic Senator in the last few months who has decided not to run this coming fall. Bayh’s retirement, as well as the retirements of his fellow Democratic Senators Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Bryon Dorgan of North Dakota, has vast and far-reaching implications, and most of this turmoil stems from general animosity toward the Democratic Party.

Until his decision to retire, Evan Bayh held a slight advantage over his potential Republican challengers for the next election. His incumbency and cash advantage, as well as a lead in the polls of a few percentage points, would have made for a very close and interesting race. Because of Bayh’s retirement, the open Indiana Senate seat is now leaning Republican. Bayh’s retirement may quite well cost the Democrats a Senate seat, assuming current animosity levels remain more or less constant until November.

Unlike Bayh, Dorgan did not officially declare that he will not seek reelection until he was behind Republican Governor John Hoeven in a hypothetical matchup, even though he was still ahead of several other Republicans. Hoeven officially entered the race after Dorgan retired, and he now leads two Democratic contenders by more than 35 percentage points in the polls. Even if he had decided to run again, Dorgan would have most likely lost because Hoeven's strong performance as Governor, which has earned him an approval rating of 80% of people approve of. In any case, Dorgan’s seat is now considered to be a guaranteed Republican pickup.

Chris Dodd’s retirement was solely based on the fact that he reelection chances were going from bad to worse. His position as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee earned him a bad reputation in the public eye during the recent financial crisis. He has consistently trailed all his potential Republican challengers in the polls, despite having the advantages of incumbency and superior funding. His retirement has actually increased Democrats' odds of protecting against further Republican gains. The state's Attorney General, Democrat Richard Blumenthal, has a sizable lead in the polls, bring Connecticut from “leaning Republican” to “safe Democratic.”

Each of the three Democratic retirements was based on different reasons, but the current animosity toward the incumbent party played a role in all three. Many Americans from both parties feel that Majority Leader Harry Reid should retire. If Reid chooses to do so, Democrats feel that their chances in Nevada will rise against the relatively unknown Republican candidates whom Reid currently trails, similar to the situation in Connecticut. We can only guess what will happen if more Democrats decide to retire in the upcoming months. Will strong candidates like Bayh retire and improve Republican chances to retake the Senate? Or will unpopular candidates like Dodd reite and give Democrats new life? Only time will tell.

Gavin Frisch can be contacted at gavin7f [at] verizon.net

As you have no doubt already heard, a political apocalypse recently transpired in the Bay State as Republican Scott Brown defeated Democratic opponent Martha Coakley by five percentage points in the special election to replace the late Edward Kennedy in the United States Senate. Although some blame Martha Coakley for running a poor campaign, this gigantic upset is largely a referendum on Obama and his radical, liberal colleagues.

Having been in my home state of Massachusetts for the past month, I was able to witness Coakley and Brown’s campaigns first hand. Coakley’s ads were effective but nothing special, as she attempted to link Brown to George Bush and other Washington Republicans. It was Brown who ran a first rate campaign, which he had to do to have any chance of winning. Brown made himself look like a regular guy while he portrayed Coakley as out of touch. Massachusetts voters knew that a vote for Brown was a vote against Obamacare.

Coakley’s double digit lead evaporated once Harry Reid bought Senator Ben Nelson’s vote for three hundred million dollars in order to break the GOP filibuster on the health care bill. Voters in Massachusetts thought that paying for Nebraska’s Medicaid went too far, and support for the health care bill plummeted. In addition, Massachusetts voters were turned off by Obama’s soft stance on terrorism. This election, unlike the gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia two months ago, was a referendum on Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and the rest of the radicals in Washington because a Republican was able to win in the bluest of blue states. In New Jersey and Virginia, GOP victories did not come as a surprise; Corzine was unpopular and Virginia usually votes for Republicans.

The Massachusetts special election should have every Democrat that is up for reelection in 2010 worried. Senators Christopher Dodd and Bryon Dorgan recently declared that they would not seek reelection while a handful of other Democrats are trailing in the polls. Pollster Scott Rasmussen has Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln trailing four Republican challengers by at least 10 points, Colorado Democrat Michael Bennet trailing by 12, Pennsylvania Democrat Arlen Specter trailing by 4, and majority leader Harry Reid behind by at least 12 points. Even California Democrat Barbara Boxer is in jeopardy of losing her job, as her lead is down to 4 points. Washington politicians need to decide whether they want to continue to push their own unpopular, extremist agenda or if they want to listen to their constituents and enact real, constructive change.

Gavin Frisch can be contacted at gavin7f [at] verizon.net