Although it is tempting for conservatives to engage in Schadenfreude and blame Newsweek’s demise on its inexorable lurch leftward, its decline is principally due to the rise and primacy of the internet. Many other newsweeklies in particular and long-established magazines in general have met the same fate. Newsweek’s 20th century business strategy was one that could not succeed in a fragmented 21st century media environment. Newsweek was a horse and buggy business model in an automobile world. In an age of Twitter, news aggregator sites and a plethora of commentary and opinion freely available on the internet, Newsweek’s business strategy was doomed from the start.

But one would be hard pressed to challenge the thesis that the hard-left shift (We are all Socialists now) of the magazine surely didn’t help it capture many new readers or retain existing ones. Readers on the left had The New Republic or Slate. Those gratified by journalistic obsequiousness and cheer leading for Obama could receive the same bill-of-fare by tuning into MSNBC. In terms of positioning, where did this leave Newsweek? It became an opinion journal without a home and without a core demand for its outdated product.

In hindsight, the inexplicable idea championed by editor Jon Meacham of cutting subscribers in half with the expectation of generating more revenue from advertisers was a recipe for disaster. Old subscribers left, never to return, and the cultivation and securing of a more refined audience never materialized. Meacham seemed utterly detached from the shortcomings of his new business model and the increasingly dogmatic, one-dimensionality of its commentary and reporting.

The ubiquitous presence of many of Newsweek columnists as regulars on the MSNBC talk show circuit made a mockery of Meacham’s intellectual pretensions of revamping the weekly into a “thought leader” along the lines of the Economist or The New Republic. The association with MSNBC simply further cheapened and debased its brand. In its quest for a more upscale readership, where did Meacham think Newsweek would go? Both the Economist and The New Republic are long-established journals with good reputations and loyal audiences. Meacham failed to differentiate his product, and instead provided a newsweekly that all but mirrored the viewpoint expressed by MSNBC.

Evan Thomas’ now infamous claim that Obama is a “sort of God”, is indicative of the fact that Newsweek’s unabashed swooning for Obama eventually morphed into farce. At times, it was difficult to discern if the magazine was anything other that a journalistic organ of Obama worship. Howard Kurtz notes, that he, “lost track of the number of Barack and Michelle covers.” In short, instead of becoming more exclusive, the new “thought leader” degenerated into silliness. On occasion, some of its content was nothing more than campaign advertisements for Obama masquerading as news articles.

Although it has a long and distinguished history, in the end, Newsweek is destined to suffer the same fate as liberal talk radio: both are products without a viable market.

Waxman’s initial decision was both precipitous and petulant: was he prepared to vilify these corporations for complying with the mandatory financial disclosure provisions required by both the Sarbanes-Oxley Act as well as federal securities laws? In order to avoid further fallout over the toxic reception Obamacare has received since its enactment, a Democratic colleague, whose head is screwed on straight, must have counseled Waxman against such foolishness. Also, in light of recent polling which has seen both opposition to Obamacare climb after its enactment and the president’s approval ratings continuing to plummet, did Waxman want to remind the nation why Obama and his fellow Democrats are viewed with such disfavor by the electorate?

As the decision to cancel the hearings demonstrates, continuing disclosure of the many unpleasant truths about Obamacare is giving new meaning to the law of unintended consequences. Just recently, the CBO revealed that certain provisions contained in the leviathan 2,700 page bill will mean that members of Congress and their staff may have their health insurance terminated before any alternatives are available. This embarrassing error prompted the New York Timesto remark that, “If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans?”

An excellent question…

The compulsory aspect of the 2006 universal plan notwithstanding, Romney can not comfort himself with the assertion that the principal reason for passing the legislation was to contain escalating costs. Health care costs in Massachusetts have not in fact decreased. Premiums have increased dramatically and per capita health care spending in the state is 27%  higher than the national average.

As a preview to the criticism Romney will face on this issue, perhaps the unkindest cut of all came recently from President Obama during an appearance with Matt Lauer on the Today show. While referencing his own health care plan, Obama gleefully noted that, “I mean, a lot of commentators have said this is sort of similar to the bill that Mitt Romney, the Republican governor and now presidential candidate, passed in Massachusetts.”

Romney’s rejoinder on the striking similarity between Obama’s plan and his own? “They’re as different as night and day. There are some words that sound the same, but our plan is based on states solving our issues; his is based on a one-size-fits-all plan.’’ But according to MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who advised both the Romney and Obama administrations on their health insurance programs, the two plans are nearly identical.

It has been painful to watch the rhetorical contortions in which Romney is forced to engage when questioned about the similarities between the two health care plans. Romney’s preemptive and increasingly desperate defense of the Massachusetts’ program is downright discordant. The fact is there are more similarities than differences between the two health care programs. The verbal gymnastics Romney employs to distinguish the two is unavailing, for at heart, it is a distinction without a difference.

It is hard to see how Romney helps himself with his argument that the plans are substantially different. It is disingenuous and easily susceptible to refutation. Is Romney prepared to argue that while it is impermissible for the federal government to force its citizens to purchase health care they may not want or need on pain of being fined, it’s unobjectionable for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to similarly coerce its residents? Romney doesn’t squarely address the potential constitutional issues at either the state or the federal level, because these issues, for him, may become philosophically insuperable. Conservative Republican primary voters will more likely view Romney’s role as a co-conspirator in the modern welfare state’s continuing assault on its citizens liberties.

Massachusetts’ conservatives may be more lenient towards Romney on this issue as they are acutely aware of the political difficulties presented to Republican Governors in a state whose legislature has for decades been controlled by Democrats. But conservative Republican primary voters in other states will not be so forgiving. And, while Romney is correct that the legislature modified his original plan, this justification will not resonate much beyond the borders of the Bay State.

The first rule of damage control for politicians is that when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. The more strident his defense, the more he attempts to distinguish what essentially is indistinguishable, the deeper Romney keeps digging the hole. Perhaps Romney would be better served by heeding the advice of  Denver Post columnist David Harsanyi, and simply come clean and admit mistakes were made.

Will Mitt be undone by RomneyCare? 2012 is a long way off and anything can happen between now and the Republican presidential primaries. After his pivotal involvement in the Comprehensive Immigration Reform debacle in 2007, many conservatives wrote off John McCain as a viable presidential contender. But, Lazarus-like, he returned from the dead to capture the party’s nomination.

But, unless the national antipathy surrounding Obamacare subsides by 2012, it will be hard to see how Romney can effectively respond as his detractors bestow upon him the unwelcome and unsolicited title as the intellectual father of national universal health care.

Coakley for her part has become the candidate of the Massachusetts Democratic Party political machine, the unions and fellow Democratic state politicians. But this is a different political moment; there is widespread and palpable discontent in the air — even in Massachusetts — most visibly against the entrenched political party. The election has become a referendum on Obamacare, strongly opposed by most independent voters in the Commonwealth, and the wisdom of treating terrorists like criminal defendants. Coakley is in lockstep with the Obama Administration on these defining issues, Brown is not.

The central issue for the Coakley campaign is has she offered Democratic-leaning voters a compelling reason to vote for her? Cool, aloof and utterly detached from the retail campaigning in which Republican Scott Brown has engaged and excelled, Coakley has remained in seclusion, hiding from voters. At one point during the campaign, she seemed to denigrate Brown for pressing the flesh outside of one of the most inviolate and sacrosanct institutions in Boston, Fenway Park. She thus created the impression that meeting with and actively seeking the vote of Massachusetts’ residents is an activity that is not only unnecessary, but clearly beneath her. From the start, the race has been Coakley’s to lose, yet her campaign continues to falter, a seeming endless comedy of errors. She has cast her electoral fate with the party bosses, union leaders and the DNC. And it shows.

With less than a week to the election, while Scott Brown continued to drive his truck around the state meeting with voters, Coakley embarked on a mission to Washington DC to hobnob at a fundraiser with lobbyists for the health care industry. In tow was Democratic operative, Michael Meehan, on loan from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to assist the Coakley campaign with its “messaging.” After the event, Meehan was involved in an unprovoked altercation with John McCormack, a reporter from the Weekly Standard. Neither Coakley nor the Democratic Party came out of the incident unscathed: it made the Democratic Party machine look rather sinister; it made Coakley look foolish and complicit.

But Coakley kept digging the hole deeper. Despite an existing photograph of her looking at McCormack as he lay on the ground, she claimed she was not “privy to the facts.” At the same time she was offering her lame explanation to reporters in Boston yesterday, Michael Meehan was in the process of trying to contact  McCormack, to offer his apology for being a “little too aggressive.” Coakley thus managed, in an inexplicable act of self-immolation, to further erode her own credibility.

Coakley’s stance on the matter not only taxes one’s credulity, but it also, in light of the incontrovertible evidence concerning the incident that existed at the time she made her statement, insults the intelligence of the voters of Massachusetts. Her lack of candor on the assault incident and the many unforced errors she has committed throughout the campaign, is indicative of her political strategy. For Coakley has conducted her campaign with an overweening sense of entitlement. She is expecting Massachusetts’ voters to do what they are told, and like automatons, pull the lever come election day solely because she has a D after her name. But in the end, will this posture be sufficient to win the race?

We shall know the answer next Wednesday morning.

And the reason for this inexcusable provocation? Weekly Standard reporter, John McCormack, wanted to ask Coakley why health care industry lobbyists were supporting her at the Washington, DC fundraiser.

Perhaps the bigger and more damning question, tellingly illustrated by this photograph as well as the YouTube video, is why does Coakley, as the highest law enforcement official for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, seemingly countenance an assault and battery incident perpetrated by one of her operatives?

Update 5:06 pm: Michael Meehan, the Coakley operative involved in the altercation, has apologized to Weekly Standard reporter John McCormack. When McCormack asked if Meehan  disputed any of McCormack’s written descriptions of the event, he replied, “No.”

I guess that puts the lie to Coakley’s stalker defense…

Update 4:39 pm: Coakley has responded to the incident by characterizing McCormack, the Weekly Standard reporter, as a “stalker.” She further told reporters today that, “I’m not sure what happened. I know something occurred, but I’m not privy to the facts. I’m sure it will come out, but I’m not aware of that.” This is a rather remarkable assertion in light of the fact that there is an AP photograph of Coakley looking right at McCormack while he lay on the ground.

More so than any other politician in recent American political history, Obama’s sonorous and uplifting rhetoric has been his stock-in-trade. It represented his most valuable political asset, intangible to be sure, but an important measure of his goodwill. Since Obama had little substantive experience by which the electorate could take measure of how he would govern if elected, his Hope and Change message was the elixir that convinced many to cast their vote for a man who embodied a new kind of politics and a new means of governing: open, honest, transparent and free from partisan bickering.

What a difference a year makes.

This latest broken promise closes the loop on a year that has revealed numerous instances of the Obama gap: the grand-canyon divergence between Obama’s words and his deeds. This latest breach of trust is significant, for it officially leaves Hope and Change, the rallying cry of the Obama candidacy, on the ash heap along with his irreversibly tattered credibility. Now that the iconic sheen of Obama as the transcendent, post-partisan politician has been exposed as fraudulent, his presidency is now in danger of being defined by the serial bungling, rank amateurism and incompetence that has been amply displayed over the past year as his administration gropes its way from one crisis to the next. Is it any wonder that Obama has suffered one of the most precipitous declines in approval ratings of any president in recent history?

The broken C-SPAN promise, so central to his political campaign, is a real stick in the eye to those gullible enough to have succumbed to all the Hope and Change mumbo jumbo. The disappointment occasioned by Obama’s reneging on his transparency oath will be profound and deep. For it has thoroughly revealed that the New Messiah, who once addressed the adoring crowds from the heights of Mt. Olympus, is nothing more than a flim-flam man. This perception has been cemented into the public consciousness by Nancy Pelosi’s unflattering but accurate assessment that yes, Obama did promise to let the cameras roll, but, “There are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail.”

Obama may have calculated that dispensing with yet another one of his campaign promises was justified so he could showcase a health care victory in time for his second state of the union address next month. But at what cost? The C-SPAN camera controversy is the culmination of a sordid and venal health care legislative process that has exposed nefarious back room deals, outright bribes and $300 million payoffs on a scale unprecedented in American political history. The manner in which the 2,000-page monstrosity was crafted has created a stench that now permeates the land.

Obama should consider that if he’s lost CBS News, then he’s lost the country.

Though all participants were dedicated to the proposition that mankind is doomed unless all economic activity is regulated by a world government, given the diverse cast of characters, and the incommensurable role each played on the Copenhagen stage, it was inevitable that the proceedings would degenerate from the sublime to the ridiculous. The sanctimonious posturing by the participants in Copenhagen, like the “science” behind the whole global warming hoax itself, was not only fraudulent, but also positively surreal.

Consider the Oscar winning performance by one of the stars of the proceedings, Ian Fry, the lead negotiator for the tiny Pacific island of Tuvalu. On Saturday a teary-eyed Fry pleaded with the delegates to take tough action: “I woke up this morning crying,” and that’s not easy for a grown man to admit,”  ”The fate of my country rests in your hands,” he concluded, as the audience exploded with wild applause. A moving and heart-rending plea no doubt on the part of Fry on behalf of his beleaguered island nation. The problem is Fry has been a resident of Australia for the past ten years and when a reporter asked his wife if Fry had ever lived in Tuvalu, she replied, “I’d rather not comment.” As Mark Steyn notes, “Like his fellow Copenhagen delegate Brad Pitt, Ian Fry is an actor: He’s not a Tuvaluan, but he plays one on the world stage.”

Yet the farce continued unabated. Delegates were later treated to another fact-free exhortation, this time, from serial exaggerator and inventor of the Internet, eco-Messiah Al Gore. Gore told the assembled multitude of believers that the latest research showed the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years. To buttress his contention, Gore cited the work of prominent climate scientist Dr. Wieslav Maslowski: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

So patently false was Gore’s statement, that Maslowski felt compelled to supply him a corrective. His rebuke was swift and stinging: “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this…it’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at, based on the information I provided to Al Gore’s office.” Is it any wonder that the most prominent spokesman of the coming apocalypse has steadfastly refused to debate the “science” with global warming skeptics?

Not to be outdone by Gore’s hyperbole, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown as early as October proclaimed that, “we have 50 days to save the world.” Exactly what catastrophe would befall mankind at the expiration of the 50-day period he would not say. In a keynote address, Prince Charles lectured the delegates that, “the world has only seven years before we lose the levers of control”. Not eleven or fourteen years, but seven. Yet a question arises: if the situation is as dire as global warming proponents assert, couldn’t they lead by example and make a modest sacrifice in their commodious lifestyles to help lessen their carbon footprints?

Then there was the “let them eat cake” syndrome exhibited by the world ‘s rich and famous who flocked to Copenhagen in regal splendor. Prince Charles, like so many other global warming scolds, arrived in Copenhagen by private jet which spewed 6.4tons of carbon dioxide, 5.2tons more than if he had used a commercial flight.  So much for leading by example. As Stephen Glover of the Daily Mail wrote, “Show me a climate control zealot and I can often show you a hypocrite…” According to experts, the Copenhagen conference generated the same carbon footprint as a medium size African nation the size of Malawi.

No UN conference would be complete without the obligatory appearance by assorted third world thugs, dictators and kleptocrats. Copenhagen in this regard did not disappoint the one-world crowd. When Hugo Chavez proclaimed that capitalism is the “road to hell”, and beseeched the delegates to, “fight against capitalism and make it obey us”, he received a standing ovation from the enraptured crowd. And this was a conference convened to deal with the imminent peril posed by global warming? And what again is Venezuela’s chief export? But of course, crude oil.

The real tragedy of Fort Hood lies in the extraordinary and absurd lengths to which many members of the media and some of the Army’s top brass, in conformity with the dictates of political correctness and its handmaiden “diversity”, went to avoid acknowledging the painfully obvious: this indiscriminate act of mass execution was the first instance of domestic terrorism since 9/11. Many in our government are perfectly willing to overlook the unblemished facts and conclude, after the murder of twelve of its soldiers, that the real tragedy of the incident is what an analysis of mindless adherence to the mushy doctrine of “diversity” might tellingly reveal.

Any expressions of grief over the carnage that might have escaped from the lips of General George Casey, Jr., the Chief of Staff of the Army, were largely overshadowed by his obscene proclamation that the greater danger would be a reexamination of the government’s cherished policy of diversity. When questioned about the Army’s posture of willful ignorance in light of the prior complaints from fellow officers about Hasan’s expressions of Islamic fanaticism, Casey stated that, “This terrible event would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty.” How comforting these words must be to the families of the twelve slain soldiers.

As soon as the news of the carnage unfolded, members of the media were quick to offer numerous theories for Hasan’s motives, all quite speculative and untethered to reality. His premeditated act was a manifestation of Post Traumatic Stress; his deployment to Afghanistan was the trigger that set in motion the murderous spree. The only problem with this explanation was that Hasan had never seen war nor experienced combat.

The derivative theory offered in its place was equally preposterous. We were told that as an Army psychiatrist, his mere exposure to those soldiers who had suffered the unspeakable (unspecified) experiences of combat was sufficient to send him over the edge. But then why, if this were true, did he utter the cry of Allahu Akbar, “God is great”, as he mowed down his fellow soldiers? And why, if this explanation was even remotely credible, have no other practicing psychiatrists, both civilian and military similarly situated, ever been affected in the same way?

We also learned that prior to arriving at Fort Hood, Hasan gave a lecture in front of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Center during which he exclaimed that, “non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.” Yet the institutionalized dictates of political correctness demanded silence on the part of those fellow officers who feared disclosing the incident to superiors for fear that it might expose them to charges of practicing discrimination against a protected minority.

Yet the inflammatory and provocative comments of Hasan fell upon deaf ears. Rigid compliance with the “timetables”, “goals” and quotas promulgated by those who worship at the altar of diversity took precedence. As a member of a protected class, Hasan was in a unique position to reap further rewards of a perverse system that in spite of the numerous instances that demonstrated his eminent unsuitability to serve in the military, instead, actually promoted him.

This incident also illustrates much that is wrong with the preachings of contemporary liberalism: if the facts don’t fit, or might assail the enshrined theory, then the facts must be ignored. But nothing is gained by a confusion of terms. Actual acts of discrimination are not the same as the exercise of diligence and/or vigilance, yet political correctness often conflates the two.

The silver lining in this tragic cloud? Those who are not so enamored of diversity that they are blinded by the unvarnished facts of this case are clamoring for hearings to find out how the gross negligence of the Army led to this catastrophe.

The bizarre circumstances surrounding the special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional District has been used as evidence by many media pundits to demonstrate that a “civil war” is brewing in the Republican Party. Based solely on the thin reed of this singular and unusual event, many liberal Democrats have attempted to bootstrap an argument that concludes that the Dede Scozzafava affair, and the concomitant conservative uprising against her candidacy, demonstrates the Republican Party has been taken over by right wing fanatics who seek to impose a litmus test on all future candidates.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, characterized those who thought the views of the Republican nominee should not conform so closely to unabashed liberals of the Democratic Party  as “wing nuts.” During his Hardball broadcasts for the previous week, Matthews persistently referred to Scozzafava as a “moderate” Republican; many other cable TV hosts followed suit.

If Dede Scozzafava is an exemplar of a “moderate” Republican, the term “moderate” no longer has any meaning in our political lexicon. Scozzafava can be characterized as a “liberal Republican” or as a RINO, but when assessed against the spectrum of principles that establish the Republican Party as a conservative party, Scozzafava was clearly no middle of the road Republican.

Let’s review Scozzafava’s credentials as a “moderate.” She is for partial birth abortions. She supports union card check, which would abolish secret balloting. She supports same-sex marriage. She supported the stimulus bill, a fiscally reckless, and extravagant piece of legislation (a view incidentally shared by a large swath of the electorate) for which not one Republican in the House voted.

To add insult to injury to the party which poured nearly $1 million on her doomed campaign, after withdrawing from the race, she then promptly endorsed the Democrat. These are the views and actions of a moderate Republican? A question for Chris Matthews: if Scozzafava is a moderate, what would a “liberal” Republican look like?

Yet somehow we are told that this incident is indicative of a civil war brewing in the Republican Party, prompted by far right extremists, who by their opposition to a liberal on the ticket are engaging in a Stalinist purge (to use Frank Rich’s terminology) of moderates.

Would it be asking too much of these same pundits to apply consistently the label of “extremist” to their preferred political party? When neo-Marxist crackpot and Green Jobs Czar Van Jones was exposed as a fringe left winger, who believed that whites were deliberately steering pollution to communities of color, I don’t recall many pundits in the media characterizing his views as “extremist” nor was this bizarre appointment used to illustrate the far-left ideology of the president.

Yet, which of the two parties is more likely to impose a “litmus test?” When lifelong liberal Joe Lieberman ran for reelection in Connecticut, he was banished from his party because of his unabashed belief that securing victory in Iraq was the only viable course of action for the United States. For his heresy against established Democratic Party orthodoxy, Lieberman was forced to run as an Independent and subsequently was reelected. Former Pennsylvania Governor, Bob Casey, was refused a speaking slot at the Democratic Party’s 1992 convention because of his staunch pro-life views. Litmus test, anyone?

It is also interesting to note that one of the most vocal proponents for Ned Lamont, Lieberman’s Democratic opponent in that race, was none other than far-left blogger Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos — the same Markos Moulitsas who characterized “Republican moderate” Dede Scozzafava as the most liberal of all the candidates (including the Democratic nominee) in New York’s Congressional race. Is there not a trace of incongruity here?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Dede Scozzafava is one of the “fake” Republicans… (stinkbug1.choseit.com)

President Obama looks out the Oval Office window on October 20 (Pete Souza/White House)

Though it is dangerous to overstate and project forward the results of off-year elections, there are some ominous signs for the Democratic Party in the Republican gubernatorial wins last night in Virginia and New Jersey, most notably the decisive shift of Independent voters for the Republican candidates.

The results also call into question one of the favorite themes trumpeted by many Democrats after Obama became the first Democrat to carry the state of Virginia in 44 years: namely, that his election victory signaled an emerging “permanent Democratic majority” in American politics.

The election results last night exploded that theory. Independents, who were largely responsible for handing President Obama his presidential victory, deserted the party in droves last night, particularly in Virginia. Republican Bob McDonnell squeaked by over the same opponent for the Attorney General’s race last election; last night the same match-up resulted in a 20 point thumping of the Democrat. The Republicans also won the Attorney General and Lieutenant Governor contests as well as picking up six Democratic seats in the Virginia House of Delegates. In short, the results in Virginia thoroughly repudiated the rather tenuous theory of a new liberal realignment. Among Independent voters, the 2008 thrill of Obamania has dissipated and buyer’s remorse has clearly set in.

The election results also cast doubt on a false assurance with which many Democrats seem to have comforted themselves. The Republican Party may currently have low voter ID numbers, but that doesn’t necessarily translate into a carte blanche for Democrats to move the country in a radical leftward direction.

The election results pose grave problems for passage of Obama’s signature health care initiative this year. Prior to the election, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid signalled that passage of any bill wouldn’t occur until next year and that the Senate would not be bound by any timetables. The massive movement of Independents into the Republican column last night will make many blue dog Democrats reluctant to walk the plank for Obama on a massive restructuring of the nation’s health care delivery system, especially in light of the fact that the president didn’t seem to have any coattails.

The principal concerns expressed by voters last night in Virgina and New Jersey were the economy, jobs and taxes.  With unemployment close to 10%, and in the view of Christina Romer, Obama’s economic adviser, likely to remain that way for the next year, as confirmed repeatedly by polling, most Americans do not subscribe to Obama’s view that the way out of the economic morass is to first revamp the health care system. In short, Independents view the ordering of social priorites by the White House as terribly skewed.

The gubenatorial defeats for the Democrats does not mean that voters are ready to embrace the Republican Party with open arms. Although recent Gallup polling reveals that most Americans view themeselves ideologically as conservatives, the conundrum for Republicans is that these same voters currently have no enduring affinity for the GOP. The question is whether increased conservatism, particularly among independents, will translate into heightened support for Republican candidates. The results of the mid-term elections next year will go a long way towards answering this vexing question.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Democrats Not Fired Up and Ready to Go (politicalwire.com)