Is Mr. Smith Truly Going To Washington

"Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual -- or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country." — Samuel Adams, in the Boston Gazette, 1781

In my last blog, “Will This Election Matter?”, I predicted the high probability that the Republicans would gain control of the United States Senate and the low turnout of the electorate. Both prediction of the low turnout was not too difficult as this is the historical number for mid-term elections. The prediction of control of the Senate was a bit more risky, but most pollsters were predicting this. I was, however, more that a bit surprised at the success of Republicans in gaining control of statehouses. Scott Walker of Wisconsin staved off the third attempt to unseat him. Massachusetts, Maryland, Illinois, and Arkansas, all blue states, elected Republican governors for a net gain of +3 (Pennsylvania Republican governor lost to his Democrat challenger). Now there are 31 Republican controlled statehouses and 17 occupied by Democrats with 2 races undecided. This was no doubt the largest surprise of the night.

On the Senate and House races the Republicans had a net gain of 7 seats to take control of the Senate 52 to 45 with two races still undecided (Alaska and Louisiana) Alaska will probably go to the Republican Dan Sullivan. With 100% of the precincts reporting Sullivan leads his Democrat opponent Mark Begich 48.96% to 45.34%. In Louisiana Mary Landrieu will face a runoff with her Republican challenger Bill Cassidy next month. The total for the two republicans in the race is 54.72% and Landrieu’s is 42.08%. Louisiana is becoming a Red state it is not to risky to say the Cassidy will win this seat. Also it is doubtful the Democratic Party will pour any money to support a losing candidate. If these two Senate seats are claimed by the Republicans their majority will increase to 54 to 45 with one independent.

For the House of representatives the Republicans picked up 3 seats to increase their majority to 243 to 179. There are still several undecided races but they will probably be split so there will not be much of a difference. This is the largest Republican majority in the House of Representatives since 1946.

So now what comes next? 31 (or 32) statehouses are now occupied by Republicans and 27 state legislatures are controlled by Republicans with 4 states with split control. States such as Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, New Mexico, Florida, and Virginia (all states that went for Obama in 2014) have Republican controlled statehouses and legislatures. That bodes well for the nation as the states can play a dominant role in the Republic.

Republicans made historic gains in state legislatures in 2010. They held on in many states in 2012, or made up for losses in one state with gains in another — even though Democrats won the national election. And they won even more in 2014. This isn't an accident — it's the result of strategic fundraising from national Republicans, beginning in 2010, aimed at engineering statehouse takeovers. Out-of-state contributions were shuffled to states where they would make a difference, particularly as congressional partisanship and gridlock made policymaking in Washington increasingly unlikely.

And at a time of national gridlock, state legislatures have done an immense amount of legislating. Since 2010, 30 states, most controlled by Republicans, have passed a total of 205 new abortion restrictions. That's more restrictions than were passed in the entire first decade of the 2000s, according to the Guttmacher Institute:

Twenty-two states, 18 with Republican majorities, have passed laws making it more difficult for people to vote.

After the Newtown shootings, most new state laws surrounding guns actually eased restrictions on owning and carrying firearms. Seventy new laws loosening gun control were passed, 49 in states with Republican legislative majorities and Republican governors, compared to three in Democratically controlled states.

Then there was the fiscal experiment in Kansas, where Republican Gov. Sam Brownback and a Republican majority in the legislature slashed income taxes. State revenue came in well below projections and threatened Brownback's re-election — but he won, and has promised to accelerate the tax cuts in the future.

It should be noted that in 2020, state legislatures will redraw congressional district lines. That will mean that the GOP will have an opportunity to carve out districts favorable to their candidates. For those who cry "gerrymandering," I would gently point out that both parties do it and that almost every state's redistricting is subject to judicial review.

Republican wins at the state legislative level underscore just how complete their vanquishing of the Democrats on Tuesday was.

Now that the Senate and House will be under the control of the Republicans it will be time for them to begin lying out an agenda for the next two years. This is a moment when a meaningful change could be made to our nation’s downward trajectory.

When politicians on the Left win, they quickly abandon all man-of-the-people pretensions and reveal their true ideological devotion, which has to do with making democracy safe for activists, abortionists and the NEA.

As for conservatives, the old joke, oft repeated, is sadly applicable: They come to Washington believing it’s a cesspool, but soon discover it’s really a Jacuzzi.

Republicans are noted for, shall we say, losing their reformist edge. The combined influence of well-connected lobbyists, well-financed pressure groups, and well-ensconced party leaders tends to stoke the appetite for higher office and dampen enthusiasm for being tagged a loose cannon by standing on principle.

Whether GOPers can break old habits remains to be seen. But it’s never been more urgent that they do so. This country is in trouble. Serious trouble. And everybody knows it.

There’s a feeling abroad in the land that things are cracking apart. Barack Obama didn’t create the cracks, but the policies, decisions and actions of the last six years have pried them much, much wider.

What’s needed at this moment in history is more than mere tinkering around the edges of policies in place. We must reexamine the philosophical assumptions that have taken over our system of government and come to dominate our public life. We must ask some fundamental questions, like…

What happened to the notion that citizenship is a privilege involving both rights and duties — and for those seeking it, qualifications?

Where are the clear lines of legal jurisdiction and fiscal responsibility that once distinguished the various levels of government and kept power from becoming too concentrated?

When did the concept of civil liberty turn into a license for conduct unrestrained — or, for that matter, a mandate that everyone must accept any behavior, no matter how destructive, all in the name of personal autonomy?

Why is it we can no longer assume the protection of certain basic freedoms of conscience, opinion and expression?

How did the humane desire to help people caught in tough straits become an expectation of unlimited support?

Can they curb the vast influence over our state and local run public education system from Washington?

Will they curb the over regulations from the EPA and the rest of the administrative state.

Those are just a few on the domestic side. Let’s throw in some with a global scope, like…

How can we regain respect in a hostile world that sees us as increasingly irrelevant?

When will we reassert our territorial integrity, affirm our legitimate national interests, and recapture our status as the center of economic and technological leadership?

Can we ever achieve true strategic independence — in terms of both freedom from extreme overseas financial obligation and self-sufficiency in domestic energy resources?

Are there rational plans and realistic methods for beating back the latest waves of totalitarian revival and religious barbarity — which is to say, of securing our children’s freedom and spiritual patrimony?

All hold vast implications for policy development, which means there will be plenty of debate and — let’s hope — honest analysis. But more than that, they demand vision, courage, unity, steadfastness, and no small measure of moral courage.

Are Republicans up to the job?

Do they have the wherewithal to devise logical, comprehensive approaches to addressing our numerous problems? Can they build the necessary party discipline, restrain their individual ambitions, achieve the long-term perspective required for the daunting tasks of restoration and renewal?

Will they be able to craft a coherent message and develop means of communication sufficient to overcome media resistance and rally the people behind them?

Can they hold together solidly enough to oppose a radical administration unfettered by reelection concerns? Will they be confident in withstanding the accusations of “racism,” “misogyny,” “homophobia,” “exploitation,” and all the other contrived charges that have provided life-support to a failed ideology and a corrupt political cabal?

Then, beyond all that, are they prepared to defend their policies and actions in staunch defiance of Hillary’s inevitable onslaught?

Yes, I know this is the GOP we’re talking about — the party that hasn’t been able to save the 100-watt incandescent light bulb.

Many people are deeply disillusioned with the politics of our day. They’ve watched the demolition derby that’s gone on in Washington over the last few decades — since the end of the Reagan era, really — and they’ve concluded that there’s “not a dime’s worth of difference” between the parties.

I understand their feelings, but we now have an opportunity to find out whether their assumption is correct.

According to President Obama and his minions in the media Tuesday was not a reflection on his policies or lack of policy on his part. It was the fault of electorate who did not turn out. Most intelligent people know this is pure spin and balderdash. He will never move from ideological progressive/socialist roots. McConnell and Boehner will have to hold a firm line to get anything past his magic pen. This will require unity and public support. The public support will have to come from a unified message frequently delivered to the American people.

This past Tuesday might have been a turning point. Might have been. Now we shall see.

As The Scandals Deepen will the Democrats be Hurt in 2014

"The natural cure for an ill-administration, in a popular or representative constitution, is a change of men." — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 21

On December 12, 1787 Alexander Hamilton writing on the Defects of the Articles of Confederation in Federalist 21 stated:

“The inordinate pride of State importance has suggested to some minds an objection to the principle of a guaranty in the federal government, as involving an officious interference in the domestic concerns of the members. A scruple of this kind would deprive us of one of the principal advantages to be expected from union, and can only flow from a misapprehension of the nature of the provision itself. It could be no impediment to reforms of the State constitution by a majority of the people in a legal and peaceable mode. This right would remain undiminished. The guaranty could only operate against changes to be effected by violence. Towards the preventions of calamities of this kind, too many checks cannot be provided. The peace of society and the stability of government depend absolutely on the efficacy of the precautions adopted on this head. Where the whole power of the government is in the hands of the people, there is the less pretense for the use of violent remedies in partial or occasional distempers of the State. The natural cure for an ill-administration, in a popular or representative constitution, is a change of men. A guaranty by the national authority would be as much leveled against the usurpations of rulers as against the ferments and outrages of faction and sedition in the community.” (Emphasis added)

In essence what Hamilton was saying is that even with the checks and balances provided in the Constitution there could still be abuses by the Executive and the only solution outside of revolt is a change of men. This is very apparent today with the current epidemic of scandals facing the Obama administration: Benghazi, IRS, Justice Department, and Health and Human Services.

Almost on a daily basis more and more information on these scandals dribble out in drips and drops as reporters begin doing the job they should have done five years ago when it came to opening the curtain on Barack Obama — a curtain that had been constructed by his Chicago supporters and their sycophants in the main stream media. Now many members of that same Main stream media are joining the ranks of the honest, hard-working reporters that have been maligned for these past five years.

President Barack Obama's job approval rating has taken a huge hit in the wake of the scandals surrounding the White House, a new poll has found.

Fewer than half the registered voters surveyed now believe Obama is "honest and trustworthy," according to the poll conducted by Quinnipiac University. That figure had stood at 58 percent the last time the question was asked in September 2011. Now it is at 49 percent.

The Quinnipiac Poll stated:

“President Barack Obama gets a negative 45 — 49 percent job approval rating, compared to 48 – 45 percent positive in a May 1 survey by the independent Quinnipiac University, conducted before the IRS allegations surfaced. The president’s biggest drop is among independent voters, who give him a negative 37 — 57 percent score, compared to a negative 42 — 48 percent May 1. He gets a negative 9 — 86 percent from Republicans and a positive 87 — 8 percent from Democrats, both virtually unchanged. Women approve 49 — 45 percent while men give a negative 40 – 54 percent score...Americans are divided 49 — 47 percent on whether Obama is honest and trustworthy, down from 58 — 37 percent, the last time Quinnipiac University asked the question September 1, 2011.”

And it is the scandal involving the Internal Revenue Service that is hitting Obama hardest, the survey found. The voters, who were surveyed between Wednesday last week and Tuesday of this week, believe that controversy is more worrying than those surrounding the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, or the seizure of phone records from journalists.

According to the Connecticut University’s survey, more people now view the president negatively than positively. Slightly under half — 49 percent — say they have a negative view of Obama, while 45 percent have a positive view.

Just one month ago, before news of the IRS controversy broke, the president's job approval rating was more positive than negative, at 48 to 45 percent.

When it comes to the individual controversies swirling around the Obama administration, 44 percent of voters see the IRS prying into conservative groups as the most important, while 24 percent say they are most concerned about the administration's handling of the terrorist attack in Benghazi, and 15 percent say the records seizure at news organizations is most important.

Many voters believe criticism of the administration's handling of the Benghazi attack as "just politics," the survey shows with 43 percent describing it that way

Meanwhile, more than three out of four voters — 76 percent — believe a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the IRS scandal. That figure includes 63 percent of Democrats, 88 percent of Republicans, and 78 percent of independent voters.

"There is overwhelming bipartisan support for a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS," said Peter Brown, assistant director of Quinnipiac's Polling Institute.

"Voters apparently don't like the idea of Attorney General Eric Holder investigating the matter himself, perhaps because they don't exactly think highly of him," Brown said. Holder got a negative 39 percent job approval rating, compared to 23 percent who approved of the way he is doing his job.

According to Newsmax: A special prosecutor will be needed to investigate the IRS' targeting of conservative groups, Sen. Rob Portman told Newsmax in an exclusive interview, because there are limits to what Congress can achieve on its own.

The Ohio Republican said that while he believes the congressional investigation should continue for a while longer, it's unlikely that lawmakers will be able to extract the information they need from the administration to get to the bottom of the issue.

A new Rasmussen Reports poll finds that only 25 percent of likely voters have a favorable opinion of Attorney General Eric Holder and 42 percent would like for him to resign.

The telephone survey of 1,000 likely voters conducted on May 29-30, also revealed that 47 percent of those polled have an unfavorable opinion of him.

On the other hand a recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal— No IRS Special Prosecutor – Indictments are less important than Political Accountability states:

“Like dumber follows dumb, the scandal of politicized IRS tax enforcement has been followed by calls for a "special prosecutor." Republicans are predictably leading this call against a Democratic Administration, but this is one case in which the GOP should hope it doesn't get its way.

The case for a special counsel is that Attorney General Eric Holder can't be trusted to investigate his Administration, and that the Administration will stonewall Congress. We don't trust Mr. Holder either, but letting him pass the buck to a special prosecutor is doing him a favor. This scandal is best handled in Congressional hearings that educate the public in the next year rather than wait two or three years for potential indictments. No fewer than three Congressional committees are digging into the facts, and they have the power to issue subpoenas, compel depositions and demand emails and documents. All of this can then make its way into the public record. If the White House chooses not to turn over relevant information, it will have to assert executive privilege. Such resistance carries its own political price.

With a special prosecutor, the probe would immediately move to the shadows, and the Administration and the IRS would use it as an excuse to limit its cooperation with Congress. Special prosecutors aren't famous for their speed, and a decision on indictments would extend well past the 2014 election. If there were no indictments, whatever the prosecutor has discovered would stay secret. And even if specific criminal charges were filed, the facts of an indictment couldn't stray far from the four corners of the violated statute. Beyond proving his specific case in court, a special prosecutor will not be as concerned with the larger public policy consequences and political accountability. That accounting should include how this started, what IRS officials thought they were doing, how far the knowledge and genesis went up the chain of government command, or what pressure was brought to bear on those supposed "rogues" in Cincinnati.”

But the poll also shows that almost three-quarters of voters, or 73 percent, believe that dealing with the economy and unemployment is a higher priority than investigating these three issues. Only 22 percent disagree.

But those who were surveyed are also optimistic that the economy is finally improving.

"The fact that voters say, 34–25 percent, that the economy is getting better also may be a reason the president's job approval numbers have not dropped further," said Brown.

Other points from the poll include:

• Political parties and groups are generally held in disdain. Voters have an unfavorable view of both the main parties and the tea party. The Republican Party fares worse, with an unfavorable rating of 50 percent, compared to 35 percent who rate it favorably. The same is said of the Democrats by 47 percent who rate their party favorably, and 42 percent unfavorably; and the tea party by 38-28 percent.

• A minuscule 3 percent of voters surveyed say they trust the federal government to do the right thing all the time. Twelve percent says they trust the feds most of the time, 47 percent say some of the time, and 36 percent say hardly ever.

• A congressional election today would be evenly split, with 38 percent saying they would vote for a Republican to sit in the House of Representatives and the same number saying they would vote Democrat.

On the same note Scott Rasmussen, founder and president of Rasmussen Reports, says there are signs the trio of scandals surrounding the Obama administration could cause more serious problems for the president and the Democratic Party if they persist.

Speaking to Newsmax TV, the pollster and political analyst explained: "As some people argue, his job approval ratings have already been hurt because they should be going up. The economy is getting stronger, the stock market is setting records, but the president's job approval is not going anywhere:"

"When we look at a question of, say, who do you trust more on the issue of ethics and corruption, it used to be Democrats had a big edge on the issue, but now with the scandals and controversy, the Republicans have a slight advantage; there's been a 10-point swing on that."

As for the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status, Rasmussen said, "Fifty-seven percent believe that the IRS really did target people and they don't buy the notion that it was some low-level people at the Cincinnati office. Sixty-five percent believe the decisions came from Washington at either the IRS headquarters or the White House."

In addition, he said of Obama, "We do know that his overall efforts, his desire, his whole public life has been spent on the mission to restore faith in the federal government, trust in the federal government. That was an uphill fight to begin with; it's probably an unwinnable fight at this point."

Discussing how the scandals might help Republicans in the 2014 midterm elections, Rasmussen said public opinion is now "marginally in favor" of the GOP.

"In the last five weeks Republicans have been ahead on the generic congressional ballots twice; Democrats, three times. We saw that same kind of balance going back and forth in April and May of 2009 and then gradually the Republican wave began to build," he said.

"So we'll be watching over this summer. If the scandals pick up and the generic ballot begins to move in the Republican direction, you'll see definitely that's going to help."

On top of the scandals, Republicans might also be able to capitalize on the rollout of ObamaCare, according to Rasmussen. "It's likely to run into some administration hurdles, some bureaucratic issues, but it's also running into the fact that it has never become popular, and that's going to be a pretty healthy drag on Democrats in the 2014 elections."

Assessing the field of potential GOP contenders in the 2016 presidential race, Rasmussen said he does not think former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, or House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan will win the Republican nomination.

He did not rule out Florida Sen. Marco Rubio becoming the nominee, and he called Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul "a serious contender," noting the IRS scandal has boosted public opinion of the tea party.

"The tea party right now is viewed favorably by 44 percent of voters nationwide. That's up 14 points from before the targeting," he said. "Eighty percent of Republicans now have a favorable opinion of the tea party. That's a big jump. There's been this divide between the Republican establishment who really wanted to protect themselves from the tea party. Now, the IRS has put them all on the same team and that unity could not have been achieved in any other way."

On the Democratic side, Rasmussen is not optimistic about Hillary Rodham Clinton's prospects in 2016.

"I have a very hard time believing Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee," he said. "Benghazi is certainly not going to help but there will be other factors. We just don’t know what the Democratic field is going to look like.”

Asked on Wednesday if the White House is "satisfied with the responsiveness" of IRS officials testifying before Congress, Press Secretary Jay Carney answered, "Well, that's a broad question, but the answer is yes." Of course Barack Obama and his mouthpiece Carney are satisfied — the IRS targeted Patriot and Tea Party groups (and possibly pro-Israel groups) helping to swing the 2012 election in Obama's favor, and then IRS officials either pleaded complete ignorance of the doings of their subordinates or took the Fifth Amendment in order to avoid questions. They might be satisfied, but this is a serious abuse of power, not a Snickers commercial.

June promises to be a busy month for those investigating the IRS. The House Oversight Committee, the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee are all probing for answers. Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA), chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight, obtained all communications using the terms "tea party," "patriot" or "conservative" from former acting IRS director and first sacrificial lamb Steven Miller. Boustany now knows the names of others involved and will be pursuing them. Oh, and the IRS is investigating itself, so there's that.

This week, Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ), filed suit against the IRS on behalf of 25 conservative groups, saying, "The IRS and the federal government are not going to get away with this unlawful targeting of conservative groups." Ten of the organizations he represents still have not been approved for tax-exempt status. Sekulow provided letters to NBC News revealing that the extra scrutiny didn't originate in the IRS's Cincinnati office as we were told at first. Indeed, one letter bore the stamp-signature of Lois Lerner — the same official who last week claimed innocence before pleading the Fifth. Letters came "from four different offices, including the Treasury Department in Washington, DC," Sekulow says.

As for how high up the ladder this scandal goes, former IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman visited the White House an astounding 157 times during his tenure — which happens to coincide with the targeting in question. His successor, Steven Miller, visited numerous times as well. But Shulman's predecessor in the Bush administration, Mark Everson, visited the White House just one time. So what gives?

Shulman's first answer was, "Um, the Easter Egg Roll with my kids." Cute, but that doesn't explain why he visited the White House more than any cabinet member. He says he has "no memory" of discussing it and contends "it would not have been appropriate to have a conversation with anyone at the White House" on political audits at the IRS. Shulman further denied ever being told to scrutinize conservative groups. Then again, this is the same man who denied in March 2012 that the IRS was even targeting these groups. Can he be trusted now?

In the end, we don't expect anyone to truly be held accountable for this serious breach of trust by the Obama administration. In fact, one IRS official was promoted. The IRS has inordinate power as the agency with first dibs on your paycheck and the arbiter of tax status for political groups. And the IRS is beholden to a corrupt and thuggish administration run by a former community organizer from Chicago. As long as Barack Obama is in the Oval Office, there's only so much house cleaning that can happen. Besides, he's "satisfied" with how things are going.

On another front the scandal involving the Obama Justice Department's snooping into the electronic files of investigative journalists grew wider this week thanks in large part to Attorney General Eric Holder's congressional testimony. When asked by Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), (of Guam tipping fame) if the Justice Department could prosecute reporters under the Espionage Act for disclosure of material, Holder replied, "This is not something I've ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy." (The "I don't know" refrain was common in his testimony — see the montage.) Holder's words run contrary to his actions, however. Not only did he personally approve a warrant to search Fox News correspondent James Rosen's email account, but he also shopped it with two federal judges before finding a third willing to agree. This bald-faced contradiction opens Holder to perjury charges, which the House Judiciary Committee is currently investigating.

Holder did a great imitation of Sargent Schultz on the 1970s TV show Hogan’s Heroes

Holder may think he's got his bases covered, but he may become too much of a political liability even for this lawless administration. Then again, he contends that he's still the best candidate to investigate his own actions at Justice. House committee members are not so confident.

Holder tried to meet with bureau chiefs of major news organizations this week to lay out the Justice Department's subpoena policy. But Holder insisted that the meeting about "transparency" be off the record, and only a few unprincipled outlets, such as Politico, The Washington Post and Bloomberg News took the bait. The Associated Press, The New York Times, CNN, Reuters and Fox News were among those that stayed away.

Government policy under Barack Obama is to silence whistleblowers through intimidation, and its latest attack on the press indicates that the ends justify the means. Rosen is but one example of many reporters who have been investigated with or without their knowledge. What they all have in common is that they worked on stories critical of the Obama administration and its policies. If it should be proven that Eric Holder did commit perjury and engaged in the systematic intimidation and persecution of journalists trying to do their jobs, then nothing short of his resignation will serve to make up for the wrongdoing.

Individual liberty and free enterprise bring about good things both great and small — among them, potable water and sanitary toilets — and for those things we should be thankful. But according to Hollywood actor Matt Damon, "780,000,000 people — that's two and a half times the population of the United States — lack access to clean water." U2 front man Bono and celebrities Olivia Wilde and Richard Branson joined Damon to do something about it. For starters, the group is going on a "toilet strike." Damon explained that he "won't go to the bathroom until everyone in the world has access to clean water and sanitation." The ploy is, of course, a humorous one meant to draw serious attention to the problem, something made clear by the group's video. But in order to know whether these wealthy do-gooders actually made charitable contributions to the cause, we'll just have to wait for the IRS audits of their tax returns.

Can The Democratic Party Survive Barack Obama?

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” — James Madison, Federalist No. 51

As the walls of fortress Obama are begging to crumble his princes and princesses in the Democratic Party are starting to become fearful of their future when their king is dethroned. There are other rebel princes and princesses massing in the forest ready to take the castle and throne a king of the peoples choosing. These rebels, called Republicans and Libertarians, while diverse in their beliefs, are growing stronger each day as they see cracks in the fortress walls. Like Jericho, of biblical fames they are marching around the fortress walls blowing their trumpets.

Meanwhile the king is busy trying to convince the people that is has been anointed by God to rule the land and travels about giving speeches to his supporters urging them to believe in him leaving his princes and princesses to defend the castle.

Four the past five years the king has relied on his court jesters in the media to defend him from the slings and arrows of the rebels. Until now they have been the king’s most ardent protectors and have kept him safe from rebel attacks. But this is changing as the jesters see that the king they so zealously admired is really a very narcissistic and petty man who cares only for himself and his queen. Now many in the kingdom are chanting "The king never tried, his diplomats died."

The jesters, believing in the progressive ideology of the king are now beginning to look about for a new prince or princess to support, but they not having much success in their quest. You see the king jealous of his power and believing he is the anointed one has not allowed nor supported the rise of any other princes or princesses in the land either in his castle or their own fiefdoms called states.

If you think this parable is too fantastic to believe I offer the following from the real news.

One of the Democrats’ most veteran strategists warns that the party is “in decline” and “at considerable risk” when President Barack Obama is no longer on the scene.

“Since Obama was elected President, the Democrats have lost nine governorships, 56 members of the House and two Senate seats,” Doug Sosnik, the political director in Bill Clinton’s White House, writes in a new memo.

While Republican branding problems get the lion’s share of attention, the Democratic Party’s favorability rating has declined by 15 points since Obama took power. A Pew Research Center survey this January showed that the Democratic Party was viewed favorably by 47 percent of Americans, down from 62 percent in Jan. 2009.

With the likelihood of gridlock and near-record-low confidence in public institutions, Sosnik expects 2014 to bring the fourth change election in the past eight years.

“This puts Senate Democrats in a vulnerable position, while threatening Republican’s control of the House as well as their sizeable numerical advantage in the governorships across the country,” writes Sosnik, who advised Hillary Clinton in the 2008 presidential race and now does consulting work for a variety of private-sector clients.

According to Sosnik Obama neither directly campaigned nor raised money for down-ticket Democrats last year. The post-election creation of Organizing for Action to push his own agenda has upset party regulars because it makes the Democratic National Committee less relevant than ever, squeezes fundraising for other Democratic groups and emphasizes issues that put moderates in a bind.

“Obama not only got elected by running against the party establishment, but he has governed as a President who does not emphasize his party label,” These memos are read closely by an influential community of insiders in the political and business worlds. In this one, Sosnik outlines several challenges facing his own party:

• Obama’s personal popularity does not easily translate for other candidates. The president is not building the Democratic Party’s institutional apparatus in a way that it will thrive when he’s gone.
• The losses in the 2010 midterms gave Republicans control of the redistricting process, which will be in effect until after the 2020 census. This gives the GOP a structural advantage in keeping the House.
• Millennials, born 1981 to 1994, and Generation X’ers, born 1965 to 1980, are voting Democratic, but a plurality identify themselves as independents — which makes them less reliable.
• Democrats cannot count on the same level of African-American turnout without Obama at the top of the ticket. Sosnik cites new analysis showing that in 2012 for the first time ever eligible black voters turned out a higher rate than whites.

While Republicans have a serious Hispanic problem, Sosnik explains, “younger Hispanics feel less of an allegiance to the Democratic Party than their elders.” Only 50 percent of Hispanic voters aged 18-34 identify themselves as Democrats, according to Gallup, compared to 59 percent of Hispanic voters 55 or older. Click here to view Sosnik’s graphs and charts.

If Hillary Clinton does not run, Sosnik fears that Democrats will be left with a thin bench of top-flight presidential contenders in 2016.

Looking to 2014, Democratic base groups also tend to turn out at lower rates for midterms than presidential elections.

In terms of actual policy making, Sosnik believes that it will be “almost impossible” for Obama to effectively engage Congress.

“Obama’s victory last November was a great political achievement, but the fact that he didn’t set out a clear policy agenda for a second term left him without a clear mandate to govern over a politically divided Congress,” he writes.

Sosnik notes that many Republicans are more concerned about losing in a primary than a general election, which makes compromise harder.

“Furthermore,” he writes, “there’s not a single member of either party who fears paying a political price for not falling in line with the President, making it even more difficult to get members to cast difficult votes.”

Sosnik is no doubt on to something and no doubt knows Washington politics better than I, but he no doubt wrote most of this memo before Wednesday’s hearings on Benghazi and Friday’s announcement by the IRS that they auditing tax returns of conservative organizations for political purposes. Both these scandals along with the gun-walking of automatic weapons to Mexico and his numerous failed energy investments will further weaken Obama and the Democrat Party if they blindly support him going forward. As the Benghazi scandal grows in scope and intensity Obama will lose more and more of the so called “independents.” Furthermore I don’t think he realizes how the media, which have supported him so fervently since his run for the presidency will being to dwindle as the spate of scandals grow.

Sosnik, however, is right on his point about the Republican control of state houses and the Democrats weak bench. While the House and Senate are not the farm club for presidents governorships are. There always are a few exceptions to every rule and Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz may be those exceptions. The Republicans are loaded with young, conservative governors who are making news on the national level. Governors such as:

Chris Christie of New Jersey a blue state

• Rick Snyder of Michigan – a blue
• Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania – a blue state
• Paul LePage of Maine – a blue state
• Rick Scott of Florida – a blue state
• Dave Heineman of Nebraska –a red state
• Bobby Jindal of Louisiana –a red state
• Sam Brownback of Nebraska –a red state
• Scott Walker of Wisconsin –a red state
• Mitch Daniels of Indiana – a red state
• Nicki Halley of South Carolina – a red state
• Susana Martinez of New Mexico – a blue state

(The color indicates how the state voted in the 1012 presidential election)

While this list is by no means complete it does show the strength of the Republican bench. Ant baseball team with this load of talent in their farm system would replicate the New York Yankees of the 50s and 60s.

On the other hand the Democrats have a very weak bench. Their current prospects are Andrew Cuomo (governor of New York) and Hillary Clinton. (I will address Clinton’s prospects latter.) To continue with the baseball analogy the Democrats look more like the old Washington Senators.

Steven Malanga of the Manhattan Institute has an excellent article on The Rise of the Republican Governors in which he states:

“Shortly after Barack Obama won reelection in November, New Jersey governor Chris Christie pointed out that Republicans’ cloudy political prospects had a bright silver lining. “One of the reasons you have 30 Republican governors in America, and why we’re the only organization to add Republican strength,” Christie said, “is because people see us getting things done.” Christie’s stance countered most of the elite postelection commentary, which gleefully pronounced the Republican Party’s political irrelevance. But the governor was right. Since Obama first took office in 2008, Republicans have picked up a net nine governorships, bringing their total to 30 states, which hold nearly 184 million Americans. In 24 of those states, containing 157 million Americans, Republicans also control the legislatures. Democrats boast similar power in just 12 states, with a population of 100 million. Even Republicans’ unimpressive national showing last November didn’t reverse their state-level momentum.”

…

“States are laboratories of democracy, in Justice Louis Brandeis’s famous formulation, and the very different experiments that their Republican and Democratic governors conduct over the next few years—especially on issues that go to the heart of economic competitiveness—will be eye-opening. In the months since President Obama’s reelection, it’s becoming clear that the Republican governors plan to lead in ways consistent with the reform agendas that got them elected. How they fare may steer the Republican Party’s course more decisively than any soul-searching in Washington does.”

The Democratic Party just loves Hillary Clinton why I don’t know. Perhaps it’s the name. Hillary left her post as Secretary of State in January with high hopes of beginning her run for the White House in 2016 and will be 69 years old. She accomplished very little as Secretary of State and avoided as much controversy as possible. She pretty much walked in Barack Obama’s shadow. Her hopes were high and prospects good until she appeared in front of a congressional committee and lost her composure when she shouted “what does it matter” when referring to a question regarding the dead Americans killed in Benghazi last September. She had additional damage heaped on her credibility as a leader during last Wednesday’s Benghazigate hearings.

With Benghazi, has Hillary Clinton hit what President Obama might call a “bump on the road” in her widely assumed bid for the presidency in 2016.

Some Republicans say yes. According to National Public Radio, “high-profile Republican, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who is displaying signs of being interested in a 2016 presidential run, recently told a Missouri audience that Clinton has disqualified herself for future public office by her actions.” At a “Spirit of Reagan” award ceremony, Paul said that, “I think that her dereliction of duty — I don't question her motives — but her dereliction of duty and her lack of leadership should preclude her from holding any other office.”

On the other hand Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., the top Democrat on the House oversight committee looking into Benghazi, summarizes the response of the defenders of former Secretary of State Clinton. He says that Republicans are using the witnesses' statements at the Benghazi hearings for “political purposes.” While Cummings, a very ardent Hillary supporter may spin this, I think future revelations about Benghazi and Ms. Clinton’s role will prove him no more than the partisan hack he is.

The backdrop to Mrs. Clinton’s situation is what the news media call the “narrative” of her public and political life. Consistent with Congressman Cummings’ framing, that narrative — pushed by Mrs. Clinton’s admirers in her party and the press — is that she is so elevated in stature that she is “above” the petty bickering of “politics.”

This is patently absurd. Mrs. Clinton is clearly comfortable with her own brand of “political purposes.” As Bill Clinton’s wife, as a former First Lady in Arkansas and Washington, as a U.S. Senator, and Secretary of State and before that as a political activist, she has been deeply involved in politics going all the way back to her college days.

Indeed, she served as a researcher for the House Judiciary Committee about procedures, grounds and standards for impeachment at the time of Watergate. And now, with Benghazi, in a supreme irony, the same questions are being asked about Mrs. Clinton as were asked about former President Richard Nixon concerning Watergate:

What did she know and when did she know it? What did she do (or not do)? Did she lie, distort, cover up and evade responsibility? Did she place politics above ethics? Did she seek deniability over accountability? Did her staff and advisors peddle false stories about causes and effects? Did they try to impugn the integrity and motives of those who have criticized her? Was she devious and complicit? What were the broader human and political costs of her involvement in the events being investigated? How does all this affect her legacy and reputation (her past) and what implications does it have for her future as a public figure and a participant in public life?

Abraham Lincoln said that, “Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed.”

The public sentiment about Hillary Clinton has traditionally been sky-high, as measured by the Gallup Poll. Three months after the Benghazi attack, in December of 2012, a Gallup Poll found Mrs. Clinton to be “the most admired woman in the world,” with 21 percent selecting her and with First Lady Michelle Obama a distant second at five percent. It was the 17th time in 20 years that Mrs. Clinton had taken that title.

The challenge to the public sentiment about Hillary Clinton with the Benghazi hearings depends on its effect on Mrs. Clinton’s carefully constructed personal and political narrative, which has always depended on a paradox: that she is both a victor and a victim.

Her supporters celebrate what they believe is Mrs. Clinton’s superior competence, intelligence, compassion and her toughness and resilience when under attack by her critics. In this, they portray her as a victor.

Simultaneously, Mrs. Clinton’s narrative depicts her as a victim. During her husband’s enmeshment in a scandal about his affair with a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, Mrs. Clinton told NBC’s Matt Lauer that there was a “vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president." Mrs. Clinton’s playing of the victim card and her conspiracy theories have encompassed an abundance of charges against her over the years, including her questionable investing record (Whitewater real estate, cattle futures trading) and her role in the so-called “Filegate” and “Travelgate” allegations.

Whether she is presented as a victor or a victim, the basis of Mrs. Clinton’s narrative has always been that she is a sympathetic figure, besieged by unsympathetic critics. But the officials testifying in the Benghazi hearings are initially coming across as sincere and emotionally sympathetic. The parents of the slain Americans at Benghazi who have appeared in TV interviews have likewise been sincere and emotionally sympathetic.

In her belated Senate testimony about Benghazi back in January, Mrs. Clinton looked markedly unsympathetic — angry, aggressive and insensitive — as she pounded the desk and shouted, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Even if a “smoking gun” is revealed about Mrs. Clinton’s involvement in Benghazi, it is wise to consider that she has survived other smoking guns in her and her husband’s past. The power of her personal and political narrative — with its soap opera-like ups and downs — is ingrained in America’s consciousness. And in good and bad times for her, Americans in Gallup polls keep expressing their admiration for her.

We are three years away from 2016 — and time and Hillary Clinton’s narrative are likely to work in her favor. The real opposition to Hillary Clinton will not come from the Republicans in 2016 but from the Democrat wannabes, like Andrew Cuomo, who not treat her with kid gloves as they make their run for the White House.

How 2016 will work out for the Republican bench but I hope it is nor a replay of 2012 with a covey of candidates stepping on each other and allowing the least controversial of the bunch to run against Obama. There is no sense replaying the 2012 Republican primaries. The Bench is much stronger now. Much will depend on the off-year election in 2014 and the continued success of those 30 Republican governors.