Thoughts on four hypothetical questions facing Charlie Crist, the GOP, and conservatives…

The recent defection of former Florida Governor Charlie Crist from the GOP caught some around the country by surprise. But, many have also suspected that a disheartened Crist may have been feeling alienated by a party who once regarded him as a potential party leader, and even a possible presidential nominee. Enter Marco Rubio, and suddenly Crist was no longer welcome. Once Republicans saw Crist hug President Obama, there was no way they could stand to put their support behind him. Unfortunately for Charlie, public bipartisanship is now an easy way to get nudged out of the GOP. Given this developing situation, it’s worth taking a look at four key hypotheticals questions facing conservatives this fall and beyond.

1.) Would an Independent or RINO (Republican in Name Only) version of Senator Christ caucus with Republicans on party line votes if he is fortunate enough to win his upcoming election bid?

2.) Is Crist making a purposeful move to the left (or the Center in 2010)? And by doing so, will he emerge (along with Scott Brown) as one of the few moderate conservatives left standing in the US Congress after the 2010 midterm elections?

3.) If Crist or the Democratic nominee wins in a three way race over Marco Rubio, does that prove, to an extent, that the rise of Tea Party style, fringe-right politics will ultimately hurt the GOP in races beyond this November?

4.) Finally, if Crist is not considered “Republican enough” for the GOP in Florida or elsewhere, is there now enough room in the political spectrum for a new, moderate-Republican third party that would potentially overlap with blue dog Democrats, and also potentially court conservative independents who are more centrist than the rightist candidates currently leading the Republican Party?

KTI welcomes your answers and comments…

Thoughts on KTI’s top five most intriguing House races of the 2010 Election…

Though it’s still relatively early in the election year, there are some close mid-term races about to unfold for critical seats in the House of Representatives that are worthy of advanced billing. The GOP is eagerly looking to repeat the success of the post healthcare defeat midterm election of 1994, but this time around they face more hurdles than they at first anticipated. First and foremost, despite what label Republicans seek to put on it, healthcare reform became the law of the land this year, a huge boost to Democratic morale, and a major hurdle for President Obama and Congressional Democrats. Add to that the bipartisan Job’s bill, the Recovery Act, and the upcoming passage of financial reform aimed at cleaning up Wall Street, and it is slowly looking like Republicans will be running against a 21st Century version of the New Deal.

Given this setup, let’s take a closer look, one by one, at the five races deemed the most intriguing by KTI.

#5 – Republican Rep. Joseph Cao of Louisiana vs tbd
Rep. Cao, mentioned in an earlier KTI article, despite initially supporting the House bill, cast a controversial, largely unfounded vote against the final version of health care reform due to a personal, moral decision on abortion, and is surely in for a fight to keep his seat. Despite his best efforts to explain himself, it may be hard for the electorate in his district to forgive him for voting no on an issue they so heavily favored. His district, with a +25 Democratic lean (Cook Partisan Voting Index), should narrowly go back into the Democratic column, and is an interesting race to watch. After all, Cao was able to win his seat in this heavily African American community largely because of the well-publicized transgressions of William Jefferson in 2008, and not a broader conservative movement.

#4 – Michigan’s 1st District (Bart Stupak’s Vacant Seat)
Following the receipt of death threats in the wake of the health care reform vote earlier this year, Rep. Bart Stupak announced that he would not seek reelection to his seat in the House. As you may recall, he was part of a block of Democratic Congressmen hell bent on the inclusion of specific anti-abortion text in the health care bill. It took an Executive Order by President Obama banning the use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions to finally get him, and the so called “Stupak Block,” to join with their Democratic colleagues in support of the landmark legislation. Stupak was a favorite target of the Tea Party, as well as abortion activists, and will seek to join another profession. He leaves an increasingly vulnerable seat behind, in a district with only a +3 Republican lean (Cook Partisan Voting Index) and no political stars.


#3 - New York's 29th District (Massa’s Vacant Seat)
Without getting into too much detail, and as KTI mentioned in an earlier article, freshman Rep. Eric Massa stepped down from his House seat following embarrassing revelations of misconduct which surfaced in the press earlier this year. Despite his best initial efforts to defend himself, Massa managed nothing but to make the job for the next Democrat in line more difficult, if not impossible. Conservative Mayor Tom Reed of Corning will run as the Republican candidate versus a yet to be named opponent. Therefore, given the inherently bad PR situation facing the potential Democratic candidate, and the +5 Republican (Cook Partisan Voting Index) lean of the district, there is a very good chance that this seat could turn back over to the Republicans in a close 2010 mid-term election.

#2 – Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida vs tbd
Few in Congress (our #1 excluded) are as outspoken and candid as freshman Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida. His recent theatre on the House floor has put him into the wingnut news cycle, while his depictions of conservatives are smiled upon by many on the left and equally despised by his political opponents on the right. If Alan Grayson were in a more liberal district, his rhetoric might play much better than it does within his divided jurisdiction in Florida. He has both the liberal to moderate city of Orlando and the more conservative suburbs surrounding the city to navigate this fall. The tilt here is slightly Republican at +2 (Cook Partisan Voting Index), giving Grayson very little room for error in what should be a hotly contested, and newsworthy race in central Florida.

#1 - Republican Rep. Michelle Bachmann vs Maureen Reed or Tarryl Clark
Perhaps the most polarizing and confused figure in the US Congress, Rep. Michelle Bachmann, has seemingly gone off the wagon with her borderline hate speech comments which have highlighted her brief tenure in the House. A favorite of the Tea Party, along with former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, Bachmann has become more and more divisive with every stump speech she gives. Her outdated, anti-minority and anti-establishment rhetoric, along with her constant call to arms in front of her supporters, has given her a sour reputation throughout mainstream America and with more moderate, commonsensical Republican’s. Her district, while leaning +7 in the Republican direction (Cook Partisan Voting Index), is vulnerable to Democratic capture due to these very evident moral flaws which Bachmann routinely projects in her depictions of America as she sees it. For this reason, Democrats are putting a ton of electoral energy into defeating Bachmann this November. Her opponent will either be a competent former Lieutenant Governor and Board of Regents named Maureen Reed or State Senator Tarryl Clark, and both will have the full support of the DNC, President Obama, and Democrats in Congress. Bachmann’s dangerous rhetoric, the DNC’s drive to defeat her, and her uncanny ability to insult reasonable Americans with her outlandish comments, makes the upcoming race for Minnesota's 6th congressional district KTI’s most intriguing House race to watch in 2010.

Thoughts on how the GOP's three day financial reform filibuster has achieved absolutely nothing…

Three pointless days of filibustering (stalling) by Senate Republicans have now passed by; highlighted at first by erroneous claims that the reform bill in question was a “bailout”, then by convenient claims that these reforms were written and endorsed by public enemy number one, Goldman Sachs; finally, after realizing that the public was not buying their theatre, Republican leadership gave in and has agreed to debate their Democratic counterparts on the matter. Why the delay? No reason other than pure petty partisan politics. These four preposterous P’s that drive so many voters crazy were used to postpone what should be a bipartisan plan from taking shape. It is in the best interest of Republicans, Independents, and Democrats, and the American public to effectively reform Wall Street. Even the biggest players in the industry will agree that unregulated gambling by fat cats helped contribute to the collapse of the American economy in 2008 and 2009. That being said, there was no stopping the typical 4 p’s approach from being taken by Republican leadership and conservative pundits alike.

Despite obvious bipartisan support for this bill, Senator Mitch McConnell could not help himself from projecting the exact opposite image. His false rhetoric contradicted the hard work being done behind the scenes by members of his own party to finalize a bill that would satisfy the demands of all sides. Despite his misguided efforts, most people agree that the need to take the debate to the Senate floor is both obvious and adherent to the Republican Party’s calls for greater transparency from both the Democrats and the President. Ironically, in a stark change from their claims during the healthcare debate, Republicans decided that they would prefer to work behind closed doors as opposed to appearing to work in a bipartisan manner in full view of their supporters. This change of heart is a curious political strategy. Debate on this matter could be beneficial to all parties, as there is a collective discontent towards Wall Street from the American public. Still, these very same Republicans who called for transparency are the very same people now scared to debate on the floor of the Senate.

The claim is that they needed confirmation that there would be no “bailouts” or “too big to fail” allowed in the bill. But they know very well that these matters were addressed in the bill as originally drafted by both Democrats and Republicans in 2009. They simply wanted to make sure that their individual campaign coffers were protected before braving up and debating the matter. The three days of filibustering produced no new reforms, nor did they change anything that could not have been changed through open debate. These are signs of deliberate stalling and unwillingness to compromise in public. Now that the debate has been cleared for the floor, let’s see if the Republican Party can swallow its pride, debate with their counterparts, and recognize that a bipartisan bill is in everybody’s best interest.

Thoughts on ignorance meets air travel...

In 2010 America, ignorance and cynicism are the regrettable offspring of fear and arrogance. As we saw today, an American passenger on a Delta flight from Paris to Atlanta decided it would be a good idea to speak out loud about explosives, which did not exist, thus causing US Air Marshall’s to detain the individual at fault. The resulting diversion of the flight to Bangor, Maine was ultimately deemed necessary due to a need to screen the airlines luggage. All 234 passengers, and the 13 crew members aboard, were forced to go back through US Customs and bag screening while the suspect confessed to authorities that he had no explosives and was kidding around. Authorities found him to be truthful, and his background check came up clean. This kind of idiotic, ignorant behavior is a root cause for frustration amongst rational, reasonable, and capable Americans who only seek to reach their destination in a peaceful, non-confrontational manner.

Most people on everyday commercial flights are courteous, kind, purposeful individuals who understand the security concerns that our nation and airlines face, and they have no desire to contribute to these problems. Unfortunately, it only takes one, cynical, ignorant minded individual to make the travel experience in our country more trying than it already is in a post 9/11 era. Still, some people don’t quite get it. Even worse, it is folks who know well that they are breaking the law, but somehow think they are comedians with a license to ruin other people’s days. Every time I travel, I see it. There’s the person who doesn’t understand the need for the TSA, or the person who gets wasted at the bar, and suddenly becomes a tough guy in the security line and on the airplane. These are the same people who cut in line on the way out of the plane because they believe that their urgency to get out of the plane is more important than the stranger next to them.

Unfortunately, when it comes to air travel, we are trapped in a tube 30,000 feet in the air with individuals who may or may not be completely oblivious to common courtesy or travel protocol. I am often shocked to see how ignorant some people are to the tense security environment we face today. It is genuinely upsetting for most people to see grown adults who behave worse than three year old kids when it comes to their actions in airports and airplanes. That being said, it’s well known that traveling by air in 2010 is nothing short of a lottery system. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Today’s news was a prime example of the latter.

Thoughts on violent video games and the First Amendment rights of minors…

The Supreme Court announced today that they will review the constitutionality of a proposed California law banning the sale of explicitly violent video games to minors. The bill, signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005, would impose up to a $1,000 fine on retailers in violation of selling mature rated games to kids under the age of 18, and would also set stricter guidelines on the video game ratings system. Shortly following the Governor’s endorsement, a Federal Appellate court in San Francisco struck down the law. Now, the question at hand is basically this: Based on Supreme Court precedent on this issue, which repeatedly sides with free speech rights in viewing and purchasing video content, will the High court side with the video game industry or with the Governor and proponents of the new law?

As recently as last Tuesday’s animal cruelty ruling, the Supreme Court has made the judgment that minors, as well as adults have a certain degree of rights when it comes to what they choose to do, watch, or say, as it relates to content that is offensive to some, but tolerated by others. The movie industry and the producers of TV shows and other forms of entertainment are financially dependent on a certain degree of violation by kids when it comes to adhering to their ratings systems. Therefore, they have often exhausted their coffers legally to make sure minors are protected under the first amendment when it relates to viewing or playing games and movies. But this time there may be a new precedent set, mainly because the new law is so specific to video games, and unlike the animal cruelty video case, it may be difficult for the High court to overrule this law on the basis of it being too broad in nature.

The reasoning for the heightened possibility of an endorsement of California Assembly bill 1179 by the Supreme Court is driven by the fact that there is an apparent tie between the psychological impacts of violent video games and an individual’s likelihood to tolerate this kind of behavior in their daily lives. Though the evidence is largely circumstantial, there is no doubt in my mind that exposure to violence at a young age is inherently unhealthy and can lead to violent action later in life. Though most can tolerate these images, some who are predisposed to mental illness may not be able to distinguish between the reality of video games and the realities of everyday life. These concerns, and the relatively lax enforcement of the video games rating system, are likely reasons to believe that the Supreme Court could make new precedent with their ruling on this law.

Whether First Amendment rights allow minors to play anything they want as long as they don’t buy it is also at issue. The bill states that this will not be the case, but the court could choose to address the matter in order to set the record straight on the rights of minors to play games with explicit content bought by their parents or guardians, specifically within the privacy of their homes. The Supreme Court will likely rule that the California law sufficiently addresses this matter, and that the First Amendment protects a minor’s right to play games purchased by an adult. The enforcement then lies with the parent or guardian, and their own household rules. This is how it has always been, and in a free country it is how it should be in my mind. However, few can disagree that we have a right to protect children from images that may hurt them mentally. The Supreme Court now has to juggle the pros and cons of this law, but based on recent history, we should all rest assured that the First Amendment rights of minors will be protected at all costs.

Despite this fact, opponents from the video game industry will fight the constitutionality of the law at all costs. In a capitalist society, few can blame them for protecting their profits; however, it may be that the industry has gone too far in marketing games intended for adults to minors. They have abused their ability to market to a certain demographic, much like cigarettes, and their time may have come to be put to task. This kind of law, regardless of the reasons for opposition, makes sense when coupled with a conscious effort by parents to manage the content their children play. This combination of forces will make the best of the Supreme Court’s decision and ensure that the government does what is best for the highly impressionable, and technologically savvy next generation.