How Occupy Wall Street is Changing Washington

Occupy Wall Street has captured news headlines and provoked journalistic investigations. The movement has taken root all over the nation, and everywhere it goes occupiers have met both resistance and support. But as OWS spreads, it's dynamism is also fostering discussions and questions about the movement from those who are looking in from outside. Many of those questions have been adequately answered, as journalists examine the movement from the inside out, trying to help the public understand what is going on. But one question has not been comprehensively addressed: Is Occupy Wall Street really making a difference to the politicians in Washington?

It's a question worth asking. For all the discussions about the changes being brought about by OWS, not enough has been said about whether or not politicians are even listening. In order to answer this question we will have to examine the tangible political implications of OWS for those in power. Has OWS affected the overall American national discourse in such a way that politicians are addressing the movement's goals? Are politicians moving to embrace- or castigate- Occupy Wall Street? And how is the movement engaging with those running for office? As it turns out, events in the last few weeks can give us some great insight into this matter.

This Tuesday, President Barack Obama delivered a speech in Osawatomie, Kansas that frames what is likely to be the central platform of his campaign in 2012. In language that (in no small way) echoed the goals of the Occupy Wall Street movement, Obama laid down hard facts about disparity in the country, contrasting the vast wealth of the 1% with the plummeting incomes of most workers. Calling it “wrong” and “the height of inequality” Obama blasted the entrenched government systems and loopholes that shelter the wealthy while crushing the poor.

Obama's speech was a great indicator that the chief expression of OWS has made its way into the national and political discourse: the growing difference between the 99% and the 1%. Obama spoke of "inequality" six different times.

And as Chrystia Freeland notes in her fantastic discussion of the speech, Obama essentially declared American inequality “the defining issue of our time”, a modest nod toward OWS and the (perhaps misguided) Tea Party. But Freeland also points out that whereas the Tea Party's version of American restoration had helped to change the debate in Washington to a question of spending and cutting, Obama's speech was a recognition of how the Occupy Wall Street movement is utterly re-framing the debate too: for Occupy Wall Street, restoring America means recognizing (and changing) the power of the 1% to make room for everyone else.

In that capacity, Obama seems to agree. And by lending the weight of his voice to the cause, he only gives momentum to OWS' perspective of inequality.

So there's no question that Occupy Wall Street is substantially changing the national discourse. If the Presidential bully-pulpit is blasting out 1% tirades to win an election- if Obama is staking his Presidency on the issue of inequality- we can be certain that the message of OWS is catching on, even in political circles. Although many members of OWS may be loathe to compare themselves to the Tea Party movement, it looks like grassroots OWS has offered (to the Democrats at the top) the campaign-ready ideological response to the Republican co-opted Tea Party.

And that begs the question: are the Democrats interested co-opting OWS members into their party? Do Democrats want to join the OWS protests and turn them into a political operation? In my home state of North Carolina, Secretary of State Elaine Marshall (who is running for re-election next year) has fully embraced the movement, and protesters also embraced her, even as she turned an appearance at Occupy Raleigh into a campaign advertisement. Marshall represents a very small portion of Democrats, however, (mainly local leaders) who have risked the political dangers of being associated with such a 'radical' movement. National leaders, while glad of the ideological framing, have been wary of declaring themselves a part of OWS (and joining in). Nancy Pelosi, for example, has said that she 'supports' the movement... from the comfortable chair of a national interview.

This wariness shouldn't be too surprising, though, since OWS has also gained a reputation for having little appreciation for political attention. Occupy Atlanta gained headlines in October when General Assembly rules blocked Congressman John Lewis from addressing the crowd in support of the movement's goals. It was understandable; after all, OWS is a movement that strives to ignore the celebrity of power and privilege. It's also understandable that those Democrats who already have considerable power would strive to steer clear of outright participation.

But what about Republicans? If Democrats are wary of OWS, it would follow that the GOP must be deathly allergic. But Occupy Wall Street's popular influence has even had an affect on the Republican discourse, albeit at the margins. Buddy Roemer- the former Governor of Louisiana and Presidential candidate- showed up at Occupy DC in late November to listen to (and debate with) the occupiers. While there, he defended the importance of the movement: “I told the other Republican candidates, 'Listen, listen -- they're saying something we oughta hear. They're saying that the few at the top gets the best of America, and everybody [else] gets what's left over.'”

Meanwhile, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, whose libertarian supporters sometimes join OWS gatherings, has also declared his sympathy for the movement. Despite being heckled at a rally by members of OWS, Paul signaled his agreement with the protesters, saying “The people on Wall Street got the bailout and you guys got the bills and I think that’s where the problem is.”

But Roemer and Paul both represent significant outliers amongst Republican politicians. Most Republicans see OWS as a threat to American capitalism or at least an opportunity to score a good applause line from the conservative Republican electorate. Candidate Mitt Romney has called the movement “dangerous”, and Republican frontrunner Newt Gingrich has declared that Occupy Wall Street demonstrates the moral collapse of America, saying to occupiers, “Go get a job, right after you take a bath”. Zing. Applause.

Occupy members don't seem too phased by the criticism, however, and some have begun to change their protest tactics to go on the offensive against those running for office. This marks a significant change in strategy, with OWS members singling out some of the Republicans for disruptions on the campaign trail. On Wednesday night, several activists sneaked into a D.C. Fundraiser for Newt Gingrich, interrupting his $1000 ticket event to remind him of the suffering of the 99%.

It is unclear whether or not this kind of direct political action by Occupy Wall Street will continue, but as elections approach next year, those of the OWS movement will have to decide how they will approach the political system. Will they protest Democrats as much as Republicans, or will they become entangled in party preference? Can occupiers embrace direct political advocacy without compromising their ideals?

In the meantime, Occupy Wall Street's mark on the political sphere is only going to grow. Even if the protests fizzle, the discussion that was started by OWS is causing the whole American discourse to shift, and politicians are watching. OWS is fundamentally changing the way politicians in both parties approach delicate issues like loopholes, tax brackets, bailouts, inequality, and free speech. Because of OWS, Americans are even beginning to wonder if the central American problem lies in an even more fundamental structure, rather than cronyism or misconduct. At a Republican Governor's Association meeting last week in which the GOP struggled to reframe the subject, strategist Frank Luntz discussed his fears about the way the movement has changed the national dialogue: "I'm so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I'm frightened to death. They're having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism."

Oh yes. Occupy Wall Street is making a difference in Washington.

Editorial Note 12/15/11: A version of this article was published at WagingNonviolence.org

The Lame Duck, Tax Cuts, Another Note on the Tea Party, Latinos in Nevada, and Haiti

Alright, time to see what happens next!

Tea Party candidates won across America this week and already there's some suggestion that these candidates are going to be resistant to Republican leadership if that leadership intends to compromise with the President. If Boehner and McConnell aren't careful, Republicans will be viewed as "too Tea Party" and too obstructionist, wasting the time of the American people. Most Americans still view the Tea Party in a non-positive light, particularly young voters.

Wait, young voters? But I thought the Tea Party movement started off with a lot of young support; remember all the young faces at Ron Paul rallies in 2008? Once again I'll go back to a post I wrote several weeks ago on the Tea Party Coalition. The two central groups of the Tea Party are Libertarians and recently, the Religious Right. On fiscal issues, these groups have been able to temporarily compromise, but new information seems to suggest that the Libertarian arm of the group is becoming disenfranchised and particularly young people are shaking their head at the Tea Party.

I'm delighted to find another news organization talking about the divisions within the Tea Party, instead of focusing on divisions between the Tea Party and Republican Party. This article from the Huffington Post is basically contending the same thing that I was arguing in that article on the Tea Party Coalition. We'll see if the trend of Libertarian dissatisfaction with the Tea Party continues. Re-read my article, and read the Huff article and see what you think.


Now we enter the Lame Duck session of Congress, which essentially is the legislative period between the election and the swearing-in of the new Congress. Democrats still have their majorities for now, and may or may not act on those majorities while they have them. The main issue facing the Lame Duck session seems to be whether or not to extend the Bush Tax Cuts to the wealthiest 2% of Americans. Not doing so would add 700 billion dollars to the budget over 10 years and theoretically help to pay down the debt, and Obama supports this. Republicans feel very strongly that the Tax Cuts should be extended for all Americans, and contend that it'll help stimulate the economy. I'll keep you updated on how that process will work, but there is some suggestion that Obama will be forced to compromise on the Tax Cut issue. It's unclear exactly what form this compromise will take; it's possible that the tax cuts will be temporarily extended for all Americans, but after a couple years a higher tax for wealthy Americans would kick into effect. I'll keep you updated.


I want to make another quick note on an article that Nate Silver wrote right after the election on the question of an underestimation of the Latino vote in Nevada. I made a note of this as well election morning. Anyway the argument seems to be solidifying.


And finally I want to direct my readers to a worsening situation in Haiti, where tropical storm Tomas threatens to make even MORE terrible the situation for those living in tent camps and suffering from Cholera. Please consider another donation to help out Haitians in need who still are struggling after the earthquake. I like these groups: The Lambi Fund, Partners in Health, and The American Red Cross. You can read more about Tomas and the storm's effects here.

The Unstoppable Growth of Government

I want to make a quick note here:

In the last decade or three of governance, a disturbing trend has arisen in politics. The "size" (and in this case, it is prudent to indicate that I mean "relative power") of the Federal Government is increasing rapidly in my estimation.

Now a good historian will stop me here to point out that the size of the Federal Government has been growing since the drafting of the Constitution and the emergence of the Federalist Party. Although I will not disagree with this point, nor the point that in the 19th century Abraham Lincoln and his predecessors probably issued in the largest advance of federal powers in US history-- see: Civil War/War Between the States/War of Northern Aggression (depending on where you live)-- it is important to examine party politics since the last great re-alignment of the Republican and Democratic Parties in the Reagan era because it can provide a reasonable prediction of the future of Federal Government growth.

I expect that my educated readers understand what I mean when I say that there are three ideological categories that with relative simplicity all political positions can divided. These are National Security Policy, Social Policy, and Economic Policy (the way I have broken this down, to demonstrate a point, allows 'foreign policy' to have aspects apply to all three of these categories).

For the most part, the Democratic Party, as it currently exists, has been pushing for a Liberal Social Policy, a Liberal Economic Policy, and a Conservative Security Policy. This means that they are (Social) pro-choice, they support gay rights, they support clear separation of church and state, (Economic) pro-business regulation, pro-federal spending, pro-federal market intervention, pro-environmental protections, (Security) in favor of increased government surveillance, in favor of more homeland security, and in favor of "War on Terror" prosecution abroad.  

For the most part, the Republican Party, as it currently exists, has been pushing for a Conservative Social Policy, a Conservative Economic Policy, and a Conservative Security Policy. This means that they are (Social) pro-life, they support traditional definitions of marriage and family structures, they are think church/state separation has gone too far, (Economic) pro-market capitalism, in favor of deficit reduction, in favor of business de-regulation, against environmental protections, (Security) in favor of increased government surveillance, in favor of more homeland security, and in favor of "War on Terror" prosecution abroad.


Sorry for the review for those who were already clear on this point. The Government grows in power when these perspectives are applied: Conservative Social Policy (government control of society), Liberal Economic Policy (government control of the economy), and Conservative Security Policy (government control of security and privacy). 

Although the parties disagree about whether the government should have control of the economy or society, it turns out that the Federal Government will increase its share of power regardless.

For Democrats, the primary issue that their coalition is built upon is a Liberal Economic Policy. At all costs, they will hold Republicans hostage on this issue, ensuring blockage of legislation that might decrease Federal powers in this regard. The reason for this is because, for the most part, the American public is in FAVOR of the Democrats' economic message (by and large Americans like federal control of medicare, social security, government oversight of wall street, higher taxes on the wealthy, unemployment protections etc.). It is unlikely, even with the brief sojourn we are having over in Tea Party land, that there will be substantial changes on these issues; in fact, it is reasonable to say that the US will continue to socialize (very, very slowly) it's economy-- socialist rhetoric is not popular, but socialist policy tends to be.

Meanwhile, liberalism in Social Policy has been stagnating, partially because Americans tend to be socially conservative as a rule. Very few Americans care passionately about advancing Social Policy in general, but it people on the Religious Right tend to have the larger megaphone on this issue, and it becomes disadvantageous for Democrats to focus too much on this area. Republicans, however, love to use social policy as a wedge issue (bringing up controversial subjects like the NYC Mosque in order to break up the Democratic coalition) because Republicans tend to be on the winning side on this subject. To a large degree, social policy isn't moving either direction right now, which retains Federal powers at their current levels.

Then, finally and most importantly, in practice, both political parties are in favor of increased government powers in Security Policy, which means that whichever party is in control, you can expect government growth in this area. Period. The continued and increasing reliance on the Military-Industrial complex, citizen surveillance, and anti-terrorism rhetoric will guarantee the more powers for the Federal Government.

These details and ideological demographics of the American electorate are providing a unique situation where there is little political upside or chance for political success for either party to pursue a decrease in federal powers. Couple this with the fact that elected officials in the Federal Government will tend to support the increase of their own powers in one way or another, and small-government proponents like Libertarians are finding themselves without much leverage.

A recognition of the inevitable movement in this country toward more 'larger' Federal Government seems to be the main motivation for the development of the Liberty movement and the Tea Party which I mentioned in the post before last. I think that this group or any others will soon find that they will not be able to stop the inexorability of Government growth, absent another major party re-alignment, a major change in American attitudes toward policy, or the emergence of a real and influential third party.


There might be a reasonable argument that this perspective is short-sighted or ignores area of Federal contraction, and I am open to these criticisms. In general, we will simply have to see what happens as the future approaches, but perhaps I have convinced you of what is likely to happen, for better or worse.

The Tea Party Coalition

A lot of people don't realize that our beloved American Tea Party movement is not a group of ideologically pure individuals in agreement. It is a coalition, a group of people with diverse views on a variety of issues, but one major issue to bring them together. In this case the driving issue is economic conservatism. To explain, it can be reasonably argued that the history of what became the Tea Party actually began in 2007 with the general public backlash against the President at the time, George Bush.

Representative Ron Paul (R) of Texas shocked audience members at the Republican Presidential Primary debates with his message of extreme fiscal conservatism bordering on outright libertarianism. Though most Republicans were incensed at some of Paul's 'extreme' positions, a number of people who were frustrated with the growth of government spending found for the first time in a long time a person they felt like they could get behind. A person who was unwilling to compromise, had a record of "no" votes on almost anything growing the government, and was charismatic in a folksy way. With massive online fundraising campaigns he called "money bombs" Paul managed to stay in the primary fight long after others had been forced out, picking up support from 5-15% of the Republican electorate in all over the United States. He capped off his bid with an event that took place at the same time as the Republican National Convention that he called the "Rally for the Republic" after being denied a speaking slot at the RNC. More than 10,000 people attended. The groundswell was quite impressive, and the anti-establishment sentiment was clear.

Though Paul's campaign did not result in the Republican nomination for President, and the GOP leaders dismissed his effort as extremist noise, Paul went on eventually to found the C4L (Campaign for Liberty) and went to work trying to elect what he called "constitutional conservatives" to public office. Notable persons that C4L supported include William (BJ) Lawson (R) in NC-04, Adam Kokesh (R) in NM-03, and Bob Conley (D) for SC Senate, none of whom were successful. But the string of attempts, continuing fundraising, and foundation of C4L (and YAL Young Americans for Liberty) chapters throughout the US-- efforts continued through 2008 and 2009 at which point something began to happen in American politics.

The thing that was unique about the C4L or Ron Paul movement (we'll call it the "Liberty" movement) was that it embraced a variety of socially liberal values like elimination of drug enforcement and additional gay rights. Meanwhile the movement called for a return to isolationist American values and the withdrawal of all US troops abroad with the intent of a drawdown of defense spending. We'll come back to this point later.

Some of the first protests that established the Tea Party on the national stage were in response to major bills that increased the size of government spending and bureaucracy, including TARP, the Recovery Act, and Health Care legislation. By the middle of 2009, the Tea Party had already become influential in many local races and in the beginning of 2010, the surprise upset of Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Special Election for Senate solidified the group in the national dialogue. Ron Paul was considered a darling, maybe even a founder, of the movement and his son, Rand Paul, used his Tea Party and C4L roots to build the momentum for a major Senate campaign in Kentucky. The rallying cry for the movement was the same as it had been during Ron Paul's upward battle in 2008: pay down the deficit, eliminate bureaucracy, and leave American free enterprise out of the scope of the government.

During those early days, there weren't clear Tea Party leaders like there are today. Many media outlets turned to Ron Paul and his son, Rand, to talk about the movement in connection to what they had started in 2007. But within a matter of months, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, Sean Hannity and Michelle Bachmann had established themselves as major "Tea Partiers" and the movement started to show some distinct colors that had been (to some degree) hidden before 2010. Suddenly the Tea Party movement organizers started talking about more things than just economic conservatism. They started talking about the corruption of the family, the evils of Islamic terrorism, and the denigration of American Christianity. Rand Paul, at this point running a very national Senate campaign, on cue began to backtrack on some of his previous socially libertarian positions, becoming hawkish on foreign policy, snapping shut on drug enforcement, and reinforcing his ties to the Christian right. His change in attitude was not just a reflection of the internal concerns of a Kentucky Senate race, but were also a reflection of major shifts in the Liberty movement.

Now the prime examples of true Tea Partiers are people like Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, Pat Toomey, Joe Miller, and Carly Fiorina (look these people up if you like, you'll see what I mean). Suddenly the Tea Party made it a mission to bring down the Islamic Cultural Center in NYC by drawing on xenophobia, racism, and security concerns within the Tea Party movement. Rand Paul, at this point having defeated the establishment GOP candidate in a primary, proved his clear hard right position by coming out against the mosque.

Meanwhile his father, stubborn as ever, continued to toe his original socially pluralistic line: diversity is good in America, of course Muslims should build the mosque there, why in the world shouldn't they? But where was the rest of the Tea Party when Ron Paul was breaking with them on these issues? Rallying against the Mosque in NYC and spouting rhetoric that seemed to recall traditional GOP fear mongering.

So what happened to those original supporters of Ron Paul's? What happened to the Liberty movement? It's still alive today, as a sub-faction of the Tea Party. It turns out that the Tea Party is a coalition: eager for substantial conservative change on economic issues, original Liberty activists were glad to make room in their movement for foreign policy hawks, the Christian Right, and even members of the establishment GOP. For now, they're content to work with these other people to enact serious fiscal discipline on the part of the Government. At this point its safe to say that the Liberty movement is a minority within the Tea Party, and as long as President Obama continues in office, its unlikely that there will be any major defections from Tea Party ranks from those who would see Ron Paul as President.

But the Tea Party is now a hard right-wing movement that has essentially stripped of itself of all non-economic ideals associated with the Liberty movement. It'll be interesting to see how this coalition holds up as the future progresses. "Libertiers" will be content for now to work with people like Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint, but for how long? This Coalition and this movement are still brand new; can its leaders manage to appease its growing and diversifying membership, or will the group fall into factionalist disarray when some of the original backbone of the groundswell is neglected? The way it's going now, the Tea Party's obsession with "purity" may weed out some of its own members from amidst its own grumbling and disaffected ranks, leaving the GOP with a shrinking set of values (and voters) from which to draw upon, and perhaps leading to the break-up of the once-powerful Tea Party Coalition.   

   

Back to Work

The Midterms are Coming, the Midterms are coming!

And I've been remiss! The couple of people who actually pay attention to this blog are finding themselves absent fantastic political dialogue! Well excuse yourself no more from those quirky office and classroom conversations: the blog emerges again!

And just in time too, we have a lot to talk about now that the world is coming back into focus (for politics) and according to Rachel Maddow, "I have yet to be bored" for the Midterm cycle. They're supposed to be boring!

But here's the rundown of things to watch and/or things I'll be commenting on in the future...

1. Ok this never (EVER) happens in politics (at least not successfully): Lisa Murkowski, Republican Senator from Alaska officially has begun a write-in bid for her own Senate seat after Joe Miller, backed by the Tea Party Express (whoo whoo... it's actually a bus, not a train-- wait, the Tea Party lives on a bus?) drove several hundred thousand dollars up there to Mr. Miller and Sarah Palin gave him the wink and a nod (he beat Murkowski in the primary). Murkowski is running as a, and get this, Republican (sort of) even though Joe Miller is already a Republican, and the party, though publicly supporting Miller, has refused to punish Murkowski and is trying to pretend as though the whole thing isn't really happening. Murkowski, amazingly, has a chance, Mr. Silver's model over at 538 is giving her around 20% chance which is unprecedented for something like the last 50 years. Not that it really matters who wins-- Alaska is so Republican that even with Murkowski and Miller splitting the vote, it's unlikely that the Democrat in the race will be able to pull in much better than 25% of the vote. Win-win for Republicans here. Of course the thing gets even more epic when we wander over to Delaware and find out that Mr. Castle, (an entrenched moderate Republican who also lost his primary) is apparently considering a write-in bid himself! Surprisingly, he ALSO has a chance, according to Mr. Silver, perhaps even better than Murkowski because of O'Donnell's (the Republican nominee in Delaware, also backed by the Palin wink and nod) dismal numbers in Delaware. If you're not excited it means I've lost you. Which makes me excited. Because it's that freakin complex. Go politics!

2. Expiring Bush tax cuts: Obama says "please, base, don't abandon me, at least we're not them!" by slapping Congress with a proposal to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making under $250,000 a year. (Ok, this amounts to raising taxes on about 2% of the population in the land of dividends and capital gains, and for some really rich people, also income) Congress is running so scared of the Midterms that they'll probably ignore the vote on this measure, not like that'll help 'em that much come November. Which brings us to...

3. DADT. (That's Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the controversial legislation that allowed Gays and Lesbians to serve in the military as long as they... pretended they were straight) Reid had the votes, apparently, and then lost them, and then called for a vote anyway just to see what would happen, and then lost, 56-43. Now for those who haven't followed politics in awhile, you'd think that the 43 number would be Yes, repeal DADT, and the 56 number would correspond to No, keep DADT in place. Well turns out that with the procedural filibuster (cue angelic music), anyone can stop legislation in its tracks unless someone can muster a 60 person block to invoke cloture (stop the filibuster). So Johnny McCain, friend of the Military, managed to defeat a measure supported by 57 Senators (57 wanted to repeal the law) with 42 of his own guys. Fun! Wait, those numbers are off, what happened to that? Oh well fun rules in the Senate time, if Mr. Reid, who brought up the vote, changes his vote to "nay" it allows him to bring up the legislation again in the future. Don't you all just love the convoluted nature of our politics? Thus we come to 56yes-43no and homos get the finger. Not like that, people. Of course, none of this really matters in the long run because Congress is running so scared of the Midterms that they'll probably ignore an additional vote on this measure for awhile, not like that'll help 'em that much come November. Which brings us to...

4. November. Republicans are poised to break records in the number of seats gained in one cycle, with some predictions offering them a whopping 60 seat gain in the House and 10 seat gain in the Senate. This is probably a little over the top, but as it stands the Dems are unlikely to hold on to the House of Representatives (Republicans will elect a new Speaker of the House), so bid your farewells to Pelosi. [I have to say, in contrast to the overwhelming majority of Americans, Pelosi is probably my favorite person in politics right now, so I'm all frowny-face about this (i mean honestly, who can see this old lady laugh and not bust out laughing oneself?, she's so awkwardly entertaining-- ok I'll give her 'principled' too)] The Senate will probably end up with a 1 or two member majority for Democrats, but Reid (This refers to Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, by the way) may also lose his job (and his seat) because of a handy-dandy election in Nevada. Pelosi, on the other hand, is from San Fransisco, she's fine no matter what the climate, so she'll keep her seat at least. Regardless of my silly crush on certain members of Congress, Democrats are in for it this November, and everyone, especially a disheartened Dem base is to blame. Turnout will be interesting to watch, I'll keep you updated.

5. Obama. President Obama that is. His approval ratings are hovering around 42%, which is about what President Clinton's numbers were around this stage of his Presidency. We won't know for quite awhile what these numbers might mean for his re-election chances in 2012, but we do know that something better happen to the unemployment soon (down, preferably), or Obama's in trouble.

6. Afghanistan. It's taken a back-burner to other subjects for now, but Afghanistan remains an incredibly volatile region that just (semi-successfully) held elections for Parliament. It's unlikely that US/NATO forces in the area will be able to calm the violence before Obama's planned withdrawal beginning in about 10 months. This means either an extension of the war, or a deal with the Taliban, neither of which will be popular with the public (here or in Afghanistan).

7. Mideast (and by this everyone means Israel-Palestine, we're not concerned with talking to the other scary player in the region, Iran) Peace Talks are a give and take of ridiculously silly rhetorical bickering from both sides. Despite some essentially immaterial gains by Sec. State Clinton in the process, it's clear that the US is powerless to bring Israeli leaders into line. I have said before, and I'll say again that I have a hard time sympathizing with Netayahu's government's position on settlement construction; Mahmoud Abbas has been more than patient with the process and it's time that Israel be the 'bigger man' on this issue. Israeli nationalistic pride is almost as scary as American nationalistic pride because it blinds all parties to easy pragmatic solutions. Let us hope that Clinton can make some kind of substantial breakthrough soon, and that both sides will continue to be open to compromise.

8. Given the strangely influential rise of Tea Party groups in the United States, it's about time that all members of this nation begin to prepare themselves for Sarah Palin to become President or Vice President of our Republic within the next decade. Newt Gingrich, Mike Pence, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and some other quiet up-and-comers require watching as well. I'm very serious though. Begin mentally preparing yourselves. It could happen as soon as 2.5 years from now.