Wild Cards, 2010, Ron Paul and the Teabaggers

Commentary By Ron Beasley

Charlie Cook thinks it's very hard to see how the Democrats don't lose the house.

He blames this sorry state of affairs on Obama's misjudgments.  I can't argue with the fact there have been plenty of misjudgments or even that there is a possibility of the Democrats losing the House but it's way to early to call it.  We know this:

1. Obama remains popular


2. The Republican Party and the Conservative movement is in chaos.


3. Congress, both Democrats and Republicans are unpopular.

While number 3 gives an advantage to the Republicans at a time when people are in a throw the bums out mood it could actually reduce their gains.  In my own state, Oregon, the second Congressional district is very red.  Republican Greg Walden has represented the district for six terms but he may have a tough time winning the seventh.  He had no serious Democratic challenger in 2006 or 2008 - in 2010 he will and his approval rating is down. 

And then there are the wild cards:

The first is the economy.  Although there is little chance the economy will actually improve as we saw during the Bush administration it is possible to make the economy look better with smoke and mirrors.

And lets not forget the teabaggers.  While the movement may have been created by the oligarchs of the Republican Party like Dick Armey they have little in common with those oligarchs and the Republicans may not be able to control them.  The don't seem to like Republican incumbents anymore than the Democrats.  The entire movement is anti oligarch.  I wouldn't even attempt to predict what impact they may have in November.  

And related to the teabaggers we have the Paulbots.  Ron Paul is a hybrid. While he is a libertarian when it comes to small government and he is opposed to the warfare state as well as the welfare state he is an anti abortion/anti gay social conservative that doesn't believe in the separation of church and state.  That should leave him with  a pretty small constituency but it hasn't worked out that way.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The recent supreme court decision on corporate personhood made it possible for national and international oligarchs to buy US elections.  But will enough people selling.  In one of the few examples of bi-partisanship everybody hates the decision.

Americans of both parties overwhelmingly oppose a Supreme Court ruling
that allows corporations and unions to spend as much as they want on
political campaigns, and most favor new limits on such spending,
according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Eight in 10 poll respondents say they oppose the high court's Jan. 21
decision to allow unfettered corporate political spending, with 65
percent "strongly" opposed. Nearly as many backed congressional action
to curb the ruling, with 72 percent in favor of reinstating limits.

The poll reveals relatively little difference of opinion on the issue
among Democrats (85 percent opposed to the ruling), Republicans (76
percent) and independents (81 percent).

So will the majority who oppose unlimited corporate spending punish the candidates supported by the oligarchs at the polls?  A real wild card!