Sidebar: Notes on the 2010 Election

U.S. "Personhood" Party:  As I voted yesterday, I noticed a party on my ballot which had candidates in every category, called the U.S. Taxpayers’ Party (USTPM). That day, a friend of mine told me she had voted for their candidates because they actively promoted a “fair and flat tax" on individuals as well as corporations.   I thought I’d look into it, but I found that it appears my friend has the wrong party or has them confused with somebody else. All that the U.S. Taxpayers’ Party of Michigan says with regard to taxes is “The USTPM and the Constitution Party opposes any taxes in excess of the minimum needed to fund the enumerated functions of government.” That’s it--one sentence. But the Constitution Party, with whom the USTPM is affiliated, states with regard to taxes (italics added):

We are opposed to the flat-rate tax, national sales tax, and value added tax proposals that are being promoted as an improvement to the current tax system. The Sixteenth Amendment does not provide authority for an un-apportioned direct tax.

Moreover, it is our intention to replace, with a tariff based revenue system supplemented by excise taxes, the current tax system of the U.S. government (including income taxes, payroll taxes, and estate taxes.)

Well, a flat tax is not the same as a “tariff based revenue system.” Neither does it sound like that 23% tax, a national sales tax, parlayed about in many anti-Republican ads. While one would think that with a name like “Taxpayers Party” taxes would be first and foremost, it is NOT the Number One item on its platform. The Number One item is: Banning abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. While the Michigan chapter platform doesn’t use the word Personhood, the Constitution party does: “We affirm the God-given legal personhood of all unborn human beings, without exception.”

The Personhood Amendment was featured in a post I had done on the Colorado senate race: indeed, “Amendment #62” was overwhelmingly rejected by voters.

Woes for wealthy women: If you’re a wealthy woman (read: McMahon, Fiorina, Whitman) who can afford to invest millions of their own funds in running for office as a Republican candidate, don’t do it in predominantly Democrat, coastal states.  And I guess it can be said from these three examples that money doesn't necessarily buy an election.

Wealthy men (read: Ricks Scott and Snyder) fared much better, although Scott will probably do it in a squeaker in Florida (coastal again?), Snyder cruised to an easy victory in the Democrat-leaning, rust belt state of Michigan. Others (read: Raese) didn’t do as well.

Snyder labeled himself “one tough nerd for Michigan” and road around the state in a bus called the “Nerdmobile.” I have to give him credit for his sense of humor.

The only candidate that I felt disappointed about losing was Alan Grayson, who lost by a considerable margin to “Taliban Dan” Webster. He was almost the only Democratic congress person who would stand up to the Republicans; apparently while I appreciated it, his constituents didn’t . It appears he only road the coattails of Obama’s victory in 2008. I declined to review a third analysis of a ruling involving Grayson by PolitiFact as recently posted by Bryan White simply because it had become apparent that he was going to lose and would no longer have the voice he once had.

Hats off to Nate Silver and his website for his outstanding forecast model regarding this election. He wasn’t as close as he was in precisely predicting the 2008 electoral college results, but it seems to me the forecasting of more local voting in this round was much more challenging. One of his more interesting posts was that while the Republicans would win more governorships, the Democrats would receive more votes.

This reminds me of many Republicans who had websites and posted commentary in various forums back in 2000-1 of how much more land area (in terms of states) that Bush’s electoral votes covered as opposed to the Al Gore Democrats’ concentrations on the east and west coasts and highly populated areas. To them, that was an argument that Bush won in a *land*-slide. In other words, according to these Republicans, even in the 21st century, the property owners get more credit and power than the serfs who work it. All hail Ayn Rand.

The Tea Rex Party: It should be abundantly clear now that the Tea Party is not an alternative party for Democrats or anyone with liberal social values. I didn’t see Tea Party as a registered party on the ballot—because the reality is they are the Tea Republican EXtreme extension. I still believe they are “astro-turf”: a Tea Republican EXtreme mostly supported financially by the billionaire Koch Brothers , and run by Dick Armey’s Tea Party Express organization. They produced a few candidates with enough charisma and appeal (Rubio, Paul and Haley) to win over non-tea party people; I believe that they could have won without the tea party association (or even Sarah Palin endorsement).

Palin for President 2012? It seems Sarah tried to associate herself with only the winners, often distancing herself when the polls showed a tea party candidate might lose. Although I still don’t consider her qualified or viable as a presidential candidate, it surprises me she still stands out as a public persona and her *15 minutes* has continued unabated. I could do a whole Sidebar posting on the empty thinking of her “budget cut” recommendations. Yet, in a sense, she ended up being the key to keeping the Democrats in power in the Senate.

Lastly, Dancing with the Frauds: A very good friend of mine who was a former dancer and dance instructor  told me emphatically that  Bristol Palin (whose "ratty" dancing, he says, reminds him of Kate Goselin) should have been eliminated on this popular program a long time ago. Politics are keeping her on, to say the least. I guess the tea party enthusiasm is working wonders there too.