The coming Democratic electoral disaster in November has captured everyone's attention. Analysts tell us that Democrats will be losing big if the economy doesn't improve quickly in ways that will touch the lives of ordinary people. People captivated by fright tend toward the irrational. The idea that Republicans will do all they can to break government apart, then campaign on a platform of repair loses its irony as people face a personal economic abyss. Political analyst Charlie Cook says we should look to employment to forecast the election. "The market could go up substantially and I don't think it's likely to change the outcome." He predicts voters "are really only aware of unemployment." He's right.

Democrats will lose in a major way this year, but liberals have much to cheer about. The longer term is reflected in a Florida poll that foretells the future of the Republican Party. Conservative Charlie Crist, current popular Governor is about to lose to a more extreme conservative, Marco Rubio. "Lose" is too mild a word. In the Republican primary, increasingly right wing members of the party will be throwing rocks at him. He will lose in a tsunami. He started as the overwhelming favorite, and is now 32 points behind.

Rubio is likely to win the general election, once again depending on the economy. But the nomination of candidates who are ever more extreme does not bode well for the GOP. The economy will not be glued to the bottom of the ocean forever. And the pressure on candidates to race off the rightward edge of the charts has been accelerating for decades. Rubio is part of a national trend. Conservative ascendancy in the Republican party has resulted in a sort of cannibalism. Conservatives once gunned for moderates. Now, as membership in the GOP shrinks, conservatives are under fire as not conservative enough. It's the French Revolution applied to politics.

Unemployment is like a slasher movie. Nobody is safe. In the general terror, one statistic stands out. Current polls actually show voters preferring Democrats, although by a narrow margin. Republicans stand to win, not because they are more popular, but because their supporters are more enthusiastic. Those who prefer Democrats are dispirited, likely to stay home. It is an off-year election. It is an off year economy.

A thinly veiled racist presentation by a Republican staffer, showing operatives how to raise funds is creating headaches for the party. President Obama is shown in white face, ostensibly as the Joker of Batman fame. As significant is the unfortunate image Republicans have of contributors. Frighten the little ones enough, and they will hand over their cash, says the presentation. Big donors have matching egos. Flatter them, and they will support the party. All like Pavlov's dogs, salivating at the bell. There is insult there for everyone.

Certainly it is offensive. Absolutely, it is a GOP headache. But the offense will fade. The headache is temporary. More serious is that it illustrates the rightward, cynical direction of a party in a resurgence that is destined to be short term. Serious Republicans who look to the future will see a blank.

Harry Reid is definitely running for re-election. It's official, he wants to remain a United States Senator. Polls show him behind pretty much everybody's crazy aunt. Pundits speculate that his chances increase dramatically if a Teabag type independent joins the race. The theory is that extreme conservatives will divide the vote between said conservative and some traditional Republican, and Senator Reid will slip in. Polls show him getting a not quite plurality when the vote is split. Maybe he could win.

That won't happen. The far right are extremists. They back goofy policies more from anger
than from reason. The sort of government most seem to want is less traditional conservatism than the image of the old confederacy. Their slogans are often self-parodies. Keep government out of Medicare? The policies they crave are idiotic, So it is quite natural to assume they are idiots. That sort of assumption is how elections are lost.

Electoral history teaches us that voters know how to game elections. We can look to famous three way elections of the past. Strom Thurmond ran as a Dixiecrat in 1948. He got some votes. But his votes came from states where votes would not be divided. The electoral college makes Presidential elections into more than 50 separate elections, one for each state plus territories. Voters in each state will cast their votes in a way that get them the candidate that will be closest to their ideal, among those with a reasonable chance of election. Thurmond won with two sorts of voters: those who thought he had a chance of winning in their state, and those who genuinely did not care who won, if it was not the racist they wanted. Twenty years later, George Wallace got the same results.

In 1980, John Anderson was the choice of many Democrats who still voted for Jimmy Carter. The logic my father found compelling was my suggestion that, although Carter was incompetent, Reagan was possessed by demons. My dad could live with incompetence. A minion of Satan was out of the question. In 1992, voters for Ross Perot genuinely came to hate President George H. W. Bush. They didn't mind either major candidate winning, since the other would lose. So wasting their vote became an option.

Teabaggers will benefit Democrats in the long term, because they remain part of the shrinking Republican base, driving candidates to the absurd right. In the near term, this effect may be overwhelmed by the economy. In Harry Reid's case, a third party candidate will help him only if one of two things occurs. If a substantial number of far right voters genuinely don't care whether Reid or a conservative Republican wins, they will vote for the extremist. Or, if extreme voters come to believe their guy has a reasonable chance of winning, votes could be divided.

Either way, Harry Reid would have to thread a very tiny needle while riding a very large camel. He is more likely to win by persuading voters that he is the best candidate. If the economy improves in time, he may have a chance. If not, he's back to manipulating threads.

We believe that our government under both Democrat and Republican control has led to massive national debt, crushing deficits, increased taxes; while establishing a large and powerful federal government in a direct refutation of the founding ideals of America.

 - - Tea Party of Nevada, in its Constitution, January 27, 2010

A little over two years ago, Mike Rogers, blogger, fundraiser, pro-gay activist, attended a conservative prayer vigil on the steps of the nation's capitol. He handed out leaflets, McCarthy style, naming 27 “known homosexuals in the Bush administration and Republican party.” The organizer of the political prayer event, Patrick J. Mahoney, ordered him to stop, then directed his flock not to accept the leaflets. They contradicted conservative election prayer.

The ethics of outing gay public personalities is clear. Don't do it. While the Supreme Court says that public personalities have little legal right to privacy, it seems clear that a moral right exists. But Rogers makes a fine distinction. He insists he is not outing gays. He is reporting hypocrisy.

Certainly hypocrisy is there, at least in some cases. When Mark Foley solicited "inappropriate" emails from teenage House pages, his example was not the first. Foley's targeted pages were later attacked by conservative bloggers, who published their names and addresses, Michelle Malkin style. It seems the youngsters were guilty of tattling on Mr. Foley. I suppose a point of clarity is in order. Malkin did not participate in attacking the interns. She only published name, address, and driving directions to the homes of small children whose parents had allowed their photos to be used in a public health reform effort. Nothing gay about it. Strictly business.

Larry Craig's wide stance was destined not to be the last instance of hypocrisy. Both Craig and Foley were self-contradictions, leading secret lives while attacking gays. Reverend Ted Haggard resigned as President of the National Association of Evangelicals after a male companion outed his secret life. Haggard had also been actively anti-gay. Most recently, Roy Ashton, an anti-gay Republican State Senator in California, was arrested on a drunk driving charge after leaving a gay bar with a male companion.

It is not difficult for most to gloat. A person I admire greatly points out a very simple moral equation. These people are all, everyone of them, garden utensils, political hoes. Considerable surface evidence supports this observation. They advanced their careers substantially by attacking gays.

I see a story more complex and considerably sadder. Each had a world view shared by many of us raised in an earlier age. It was a simple world way back then. There were no gays with a different sexual orientation. There were only perverts, deserving of our contempt. A lifetime struggle against themselves had to produce at least some who were viciously anti-gay.

It is hard to imagine lives of daytime antagonism and nighttime urges that would not also involve considerable self-loathing. Deliberate or not, these are tragic figures. More important, the pathology that a deeply ingrained denial of self entails is not limited to public figures. Many suffer in silence.

It is an affliction imposed by society. It ought to stop. It eventually will.

I’ve always believed that my personal life is personal and I have a public role, a public job, a public responsibility. But I felt I could keep the two separate.

 - - State Senator Roy Ashburn (R-CA), March 8, 2010

Grove City College is a small Christian institution in Pennsylvania. The school has been around for more than 130 years. Its charter mandates that students be admitted "without regard to religious test or belief." This is how the school describes its roots:

The founders of Grove City College, consciously avoiding narrow sectarianism, held a vision of Christian society transcending denomination, creeds, and confessions ... They hoped that through its program of intellectual, moral, and spiritual education, Grove City College would produce young leaders, whatever their creed or confession, capable of pushing civilization forward on every frontier.

When those supporting equality for gays promoted a "day of silence" for gay rights, a counselor apparently remarked that it was fine by him. He encouraged students to attend school as usual. So a group of conservative Christians is trying to get him fired.

That's the temptation, isn't it? As frail humans afflicted with the limitations of the wisdom of our upbringing, we can too often embrace highly selected scripture that might reinforce the prejudices of our parents. The group of conservatives redefines the golden rule.

Hmmm. “…The way I want to be treated.” So, if a student is about to enter, or has entered, a high-risk practice that is called an abomination by our Lord, and has shared this with classmates, a “true” Christian should attend school to support a day that affirms this behavior and scorns any warnings to that student? Some friendship!

Here’s a biblically-based alternative: “Friends don’t let friends do homosexuality!”

There is a different course, one in accord with the teachings of Christ. I am impressed with the campaign of outreach conducted by the house of worship I attend. I like to feel that it is part of a larger movement to welcome those of uncertain faith into a fellowship of spiritual growth. We are encouraged to support one another, and to join together in walking with Jesus.

I am trying to imagine us taking the other approach: declaring our bigotries to be divinely inspired, then using our church to force those biases on others.

Nope. Can't quite do it.

We need to preserve traditional values for the future of our children. Children must be raised with morals and principles.

 - - Roy Ashburn, State Senator (R-CA), March 31, 2005

Sources tell CBS13 that a state senator from Southern California was arrested for allegedly driving drunk after leaving Faces, a gay nightclub in midtown Sacramento, early Wednesday morning.

 - - News Report on a local Sacramento, CA Television site, March 4, 2010

Nuggets of internet gold:

• Nancy Hanks at The Hankster suggests that electoral success of independents might result in a citizen legislature.

• Max's Dad has nominees for Worst Person in the World.

• Gwendolyn Barry with New Global Myth takes notice of old white men training to fight invading terrorists. Beware automatic music on your PC speakers.

• Emily at The Vigil sees Democrats as suffering from a variation of battered wife syndrome, flinching at each Republican feint.

• Give The World of Doorman-Priest 40 seconds, and you will see a very cool video. Nuff said.

• Conservative James Wigderson looks at a drunk driver's resistance to being tossed out of the Wisconsin legislature. His defense: others have gotten away with worse.

• Jack Jodell, friend of the working blogger, at THE SATURDAY AFTERNOON POST takes a look at recent history, reconciliation, and the economy and determines that Republicanism is a bit of a character flaw. Okay, I made that part up.

• Tim McGaha at Tim's Thoughtful Spot looks at Texas primary results and predicts November elections will depend less on Tea Partying than on the economy. He says Republicans might get a shock.

• Conservative Chuck Thinks Right proposes that the anti-government gun nut who shot two officers and tried to kill others at the Pentagon must actually have been a liberal. Good luck on that one, Chuck.

• If you can make it past inaccurate labeling of "socialized medicine," conservative Ned Williams at WisdomIsVindicated takes a look at interesting statistical corrections in a study on infant mortality.

• David Everitt-Carlson of The Wild Wild East Dailies in Munich closes in on professional success in business consulting. Beware automatic music on your PC speakers.

• Slant Right's John Houk has found the answer to those who hate Jews. It is to hate Muslims. Sad.

• The Uyghur Blog carries well researched news of Communist Chinese oppression. Not much rhetoric. The indignation is subdued. Bare facts are allowed to speak for themselves.