Here’s an interesting piece I came across on the Public Policy Polling blog. There are real parallels between the Palin thing-y and the Wizard of Oz. When that facade comes down . . .

Apparently, a majority of Alaskans see through Palin and know her as a quitter. As matters move along, greater exposure to the light will prove to the most effective disinfectant.

Palin 2012 in Alaska

If Sarah Palin runs for President in 2012 she can’t count on a whole lot of support back home. 62% of Alaska Republicans are opposed to her making a White House bid and she gets only 17% in a hypothetical 2012 primary in the state tying for her second with Mike Huckabee behind Mitt Romney.

Read the full piece at Public Policy Polling.

The message of hope and change was largely responsible for the election of Barack Obama. People were happy, indeed giddy with optimism, about coming change. Whether it was about Lily Ledbetter (relatively small, excuse me) or Health Care Reform (big), Obama’s presidency has been all about change–and, unfortunately, resistance to change. But ‘change’ was characterized as engaging and positive.

An election victory in Pennsylvania (Critz) and important primaries in PA (Sestak) and Arkansas (Halter) bode well for the mid-term elections. However, the demand for change now rides on a platform of anger and negativity.

In each case, election or primary, the key was turnout. People voted. People expressed their concern. And, it appears, that change is coming. A good sign for progressives. Even in Kentucky, progressives come out ahead in the long term because a wingnut libertarian is pushing the Republican Party further to the right. Each primary was a plus for progressives.

Halter is a thoughtful and strong candidate, pushing conservative Dem Lincoln to a head-to-head run-off that, I think, favors Halter; payback for her vote against health care reform (and her progressive position on finance reform is a wolf in lamb’s clothing). Critz is a competent guy, winning in a very conservative region; does this negate some of the concerns derivative of recent conservative victories? Specter cast his Supreme Court votes for extremely conservative justices. Good riddance. Rand Paul prevailed against the guy strongly backed by Mitch McConnell and Dick Cheney (heh, heh); for the moment, I thank him. Paul will lose in the general election given his too frequent statement of off-the-wall positions.

At least for the coming weeks, there will be fewer tailing heads spreading word that the Republicans will make significant advances in Congress.

So as I said yesterday, a breath of fresh air is emerging and circulating. . . Malaise and fatigue have permeated the air for too long. Progressives need to start feeling good and show renewed energy.

Perhaps we can. Feelin’ good. Yes We Can! Yes We Will!

For the truth is that the hard right has dominated the G.O.P. for many years. Indeed, the new Maine platform is if anything a bit milder than the Texas Republican platform of 2000, which called not just for eliminating the Federal Reserve but also for returning to the gold standard, for killing not just the Department of Education but also the Environmental Protection Agency, and more.

Somehow, though, the radicalism of Texas Republicans wasn’t a story in 2000, an election year in which George W. Bush of Texas, soon to become president, was widely portrayed as a moderate.

Or consider those talk-show hosts. Rush Limbaugh hasn’t changed: his recent suggestion that environmentalist terrorists might have caused the ecological disaster in the gulf is no worse than his repeated insinuations that Hillary Clinton might have been a party to murder. What’s changed is his respectability: news organizations are no longer as eager to downplay Mr. Limbaugh’s extremism as they were in 2002, when The Washington Post’s media critic insisted that the radio host’s critics were the ones who had “lost a couple of screws,” that he was a sensible “mainstream conservative” who talks “mainly about policy.”

Read the full column here

Mr. Krugman also posted a short blog entry about the upward trend the Democrats have had recently. In January, many Democrats were becoming very discouraged with the loss of the Senate seat in Massachusetts and the prolonged and frustrating path health care reform undertook. President Obama’s competent handling of the oil leak in the Gulf and the terror scare in New York City have shown the nation that he is a better executive than that guy who was the Commander in Chief for the previous eight years. Today, the Democrats seem to be getting their house in order, working on strong financial reform legislation that is taking on some very powerful interests. November is still a long ways away, but the prospects for holding the House are seeming brighter than they were a few short months ago.

Organizing for America, the former grass-roots campaign arm for President Obama’s 2008 campaign, is trying to rally supporters to phone bank and get out the vote in Pennsylvania for Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Penn., the former Republican locked in a tight primary race with a far more progressive Democrat, Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Penn.

Chris Bolling, the national volunteer coordinator for OFA, writes in an email that the “stakes of this election are high: ensuring that allies of the President are elected in the House and Senate to fight for change. So starting this weekend, through Tuesday’s election, there will be phone banks for OFA volunteers in D.C. We’ll call into Pennsylvania and encourage voters to support leaders who will fight for President Obama’s vision for change.”

[Read on]

Should progressive, grassroots volunteers, who supported an underdog progressive candidate in 2008, now be encouraged to work against a progressive in a Pennsylvania primary? Should the national Democratic Party be so involved in an party primary? Has pragmatic politics replaced idealism on the left?

Share your thoughts by making a comment below and vote in our poll.

Part 2

the Tea Party is essentially the reappearance of an old anti-government far right that has always been with us and accounts for about one-fifth of the country. The Times reported that Tea Party supporters “tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45.” They are also more affluent and better educated than Americans as a whole. This is the populism of the privileged.

The whole story here.

NY Times Op-Ed by Thomas Freidman

I am sitting with Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican, who, along with John Kerry and Joe Lieberman, is trying to craft a new energy bill — one that could actually win 60 votes. Graham’s approach to bringing around his conservative state has been simple: avoid talking about “climate change,” which many on the right don’t believe. Instead, frame our energy challenge as a need to “clean up carbon pollution,” to “become energy independent” and to “create more good jobs and new industries for South Carolinians.” He proposes “putting a price on carbon,” starting with a very focused carbon tax, as opposed to an economywide cap-and-trade system, so as to spur both consumers and industries to invest in and buy new clean energy products. He includes nuclear energy, and insists on permitting more offshore drilling for oil and gas to give us more domestic sources, as we bridge to a new clean energy economy.

Read Thomas Friedman’s entire Op-Ed at NYTimes.com.

The survey reveals relatively little difference of opinion on the issue among Democrats (85 percent opposed to the ruling), Republicans (76 percent) and independents (81 percent).

Read the See the full article here.

By FRANK RICH
Published: February 13, 2010
Liberals had a blast mocking Sarah Palin last weekend when she was caught addressing the Tea Party Convention with a cheat sheet scrawled on her hand. Even the president’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, couldn’t resist getting into the act and treated a White House briefing to a Palin hand gag of his own.

Read the full column @ The New York Times.