It's all about playing down expectations

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs warned on Sunday that there is a concrete possability the Republicans could take back the House of Representatives in November. This is one of the first public admissions of political trouble from the Democratic establishment. Conservative pundits were quick to jump on the prospect of the Obama Administration sounding the alarm so early in the election cycle, citing the weakness of their position. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has repeatedly asserted the Democrats' House majority is not in danger, citing individual house races, but her statements have only become more positive following the completion of the health care debate.

Pelosi has a point here. Though the national trends have the GOP at a slight advantage, there are numerous reasons to suggest they will fall short of a majority. The individual House races that feature vulnerable Democratic incumbents are polling better for the majority party than would be expected. The Democrats also have a massive fund-raising advantage. Above all else, the Republicans are not viewed as a good alternative to the Democrats by the electorate. The nomination of people like Sharron Angle and Rand Paul does nothing to improve their standing in this area.

Furthermore, the White House statements about the Democratic Party's chances in November are likely to play down expectations. The Republican Party has been trumpeting their inevitable win so loudly that anything short of a sweep in November will make them look bad. It is likely Democratic strategists have realized there will be political capital to be had if the Republicans do not win the election by a mile. The comments could also have been trying to arouse the Democratic base, who are frightened by the idea of John Boehner (R-OH) as Speaker of the House.

Why were we even talking about repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the first place?

Rand Paul, the winner of the Republican Senatorial primary in Kentucky, has since made statements indicating he is opposed to several portions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The main title he was referring to the title which bars racial discrimination in private enterprise. He made the statements while being interviewed by Rachael Maddow of MSNBC and has come under fire from liberals and conservatives alike. Conservatives have gone as far as criticizing Rand Paul for not committing to a repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Liberals, such as Jim Clyburn (D-SC) have called his comments "appalling."

Nonetheless, this debate over his comments couldn't come at a worse time. Portions of the voting rights act were almost struck down earlier this year in a closely watched Supreme Court decision. Not many people are still talking about it, but George W. Bush pushed for the privatization of Social Security less than 10 years ago. These pieces of legislation form some of the most important achievements in the history of the United States. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is so important to who we are as Americans it is even taught so in public school textbooks.

So why are we even talking about it as if it is a campaign issue? It increasingly appears the political climate is moving closer and closer to what it was 100 years ago. We don't have to be moving backwards. This country was built on freedom, equality, and individual opportunity. Any person who claims to oppose such core aspects of Civil Rights legislation oppose these fundamental principles. Let's send a message to these politicians that we do not want our country going back 100 years.

Rand Paul wins Republican senate nomination in Kentucky

It is no surprise to anybody that Rand Paul has won the Republican nomination for senate against establishment candidate Trey Grayson. Though not suprising, the result is very significant. Rand Paul is well known to be a Tea Party movement sympathizer, even going so far as to quote Tea Party members during his victory speech earlier tonight. He has been riding a wave of anti-establishment anger in Kentucky, as Trey Grayson received the endorsement of its other senator, minority leader Mitch McConnell. He is currently the second Republican primary contender to lose because they did not get cozy enough with the Tea Party movement. The first of course, is lame duck Utah senator Bob Bennett. If a Tea Party candidate can defeat an establishment Republican with more votes than have ever been cast in a Kentucky senate primary election, one could conclude the movement is one to be reckoned with. If I were the GOP leadership, I would be very scared right now.

Who will be riding the Ron Paul blimp in 2012?

There is a spirited debate over who actually constituted Ron Paul's base in the 2008 presidential primaries. Ron Paul successfully captured the young Republican vote and created much enthusiasm among this demographic. This is insignificant, however, as young Americans are overwhelmingly Democratic or independently affiliated. The key to Ron Paul's base is the current following of the Tea Party.

Ron Paul's son, Rand Paul, is currently the front runner in the Republican senatorial primary in Kentucky to fill the open seat of retiring senator Jim Bunning. He has never held political office before this campaign and shares many of the libertarian views of his father. He has quickly pulled away from the establishment candidate, Trey Grayson, capturing much of the die-hard Republican base that one needs to win any Republican primary fight. His campaign is relevant, because it is drawing on much of the Tea Party movement's enthusiasm and supporters.

So my question is, will Ron Paul run for president in 2012? And if he does, will he become the Tea Party insurgent for the Republican nomination? Ron Paul is no orthodox conservative. Instead, he is a paleo-conservative, a dying breed of anti-interventionist Republicans. It would be easy to criticize many stances he has taken which pitted himself against the neo-conservatives in his party, particularly on international issues. For instance, he opposes the Iraq wars and all foreign involvement. He also does not believe in free trade, favoring protectionism. Some of these stances could be criticized by the modern conservative base who love to point out flaws in a candidate's credentials.

Sarah Palin, once thought to be the darling of the Tea Party movement, is now completely irrelevant from the 2012 elections. Ron Paul could fill this vacuum of anti-establishment anger present in the primary electorate. It would be easy for him to overcome a moderate candidate such as Mitt Romney, but he would have to change some of his stances. It will be interesting to see if Paul molds himself into something more digestible, or continues to pursue his unique path of libertarianism. If the Kentucky senatorial primary stands as any lesson, it is likely that conservative voters will hop on the Ron Paul blimp, only to pull it down during the general election.

Rudy, are you with me? ITS OVER!

So Rudy Giuliani is going after more Republicans for being part of the "blame America first" crowd. Now, three days after the attacks this would seem to be a good accusation given the immense pain and suffering that the country had recently been put through, but that period is over. When Republicans Ron and Rand Paul say our neoconservative policies are partially responsible for the international animosity that resulted in the September 11 attacks, they are doing so out of a firm desire to prevent such attacks from ever happening again. Giuliani's retributive attitude towards foreign policy is exactly what got us into both Middle Eastern wars. When you pursue interventionist policies overseas for more than 30 years that disrupt the lives of already disadvantaged people, they will get angry. So instead of trying to stifle genuine thoughtfulness within your own party, maybe you should try to focus on moving on.