The Democratic Party is appearing increasingly unglued, its members at war with one another. And last night's State of the Union address is unlikely to restore President Obama to his previous rock star status. While the left experiences the political equivalent of a nervous breakdown, the badly bruised Republican Party is rising. As many begin to look to the right and its candidates for answers, the GOP must use caution as it seeks to regain power. Trying to orchestrate a major reinvention would be a big mistake.

Despite the resurgence, there's no question that the right suffers from a leadership vacuum. Still, this gaping hole should not be a cause for concern. Contrary to the beliefs of insiders and political enthusiasts, the right does not need a Sherpa, a Ronald Reagan resurrected from the dead, a new savior - yet.

By anointing a figurehead and potential front-runner in 2012, the result is a person thrust into a spotlight and subjected to immeasurable scrutiny. It also gives the opposition a target that would put this rising star on three years of defensive publicity. Then, factor in the Tantaros Rule: Any person who has tried and failed to run for the office of the President or has been floated as a contender should immediately be disqualified. You know who they are.

Though the next great hope for the right has not been revealed, there is no rush. With many beginning to whisper about South Dakota Sen. John Thune and others, the best thing the right can do for their future is not mention their names.

When it comes to policy, Republicans don't need a dusted off, refigured version of the Contract With America or a nationalized party platform that has Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele's seal of approval.

Why roll out a counteragenda when there is no one to implement it? Democrats have total control. Further, why would the right want to nationalize an election? It clearly has been nationalized by the discontent for the other party.

The agenda of the other side is so terrible that Republicans don't need a counterpoint or some savior to lead the party out of the dark. The GOP has taken off the blindfold. Democrats have proven legally blind. Big difference.

Campaign 2012 started officially last night but it sounded more like a throwback to 2008.

We heard the same lines (“a new era has begun” and a similar tone (Washington is bad) that we heard two years ago

One problem: Obama has been in Washington for a while now. You can’t credibly paint yourself as an outsider when you err, um, live at the city’s most famous and iconic address.

He started with a lecture on history, and ended by cementing his own: defiance, and delusion – personified.

Rather than tack to the middle, Obama remained firmly planted in leftist ground and chained to his unpopular agenda.

On the night when he was supposed to be celebrating a health care victory, President Obama was still trying to force feed a bill that is unsalvageable and driving his party off a cliff, while simultaneously dividing it.

Not only did he accept zero responsibility for his own shortcomings, he took James Carville’s advice and foolishly - and repeatedly -- blamed George Bush! That just made him look incompetent and unable to figure out things on his own.

Politically speaking, Obama needed to win back the independents and swing voters the Democrats are hemorrhaging. The speech didn't do that.

Read more here:

Senator Arlen Specter has been in Washington long enough to learn a lot about politics. It’s shame he never learned anything about protocol. 
 
The cranky and politically vulnerable Senior Senator from the Keystone State revealed his outdated and utterly inappropriate mindset when dealing with women on a radio show this week where he snapped at Congresswoman Michelle Bachman, a Republican, demanding she stop interrupting him and act like “a lady”. 
 
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER, D-PENN.: Now wait a minute, I'll stop and you can talk.

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN, R-MINN.: OK.

SPECTER: I'll treat you like a lady, so act like one.

BACHMANN: Well, I am a lady.

SPECTER: My question to you was what did you vote for?

BACHMANN: I voted for prosperity. I didn't vote for the government takeover of private industry.

SPECTER: She said I voted for prosperity. Well, prosperity wasn't a bill.

BACHMANN: Well, why don't we make it a bill?

SPECTER: Now wait a minute me. Don't interrupt me, I didn't interrupt you. Act like a lady.

BACHMANN: Well, I think I'm a lady.

SPECTER: I think you are too, that's why I'm treating you like one but just don't interrupt me.
If this is how he speaks to a colleague during a radio interview, how does he treat his staff behind the scenes? What about his constituents?

His defenders are invoking all sorts of explanations for the gaffe. Some argue that this is how they talk on Capitol Hill, with men calling women "lady". Having worked there for years, I can assure you that is not true. And based on Senator Barbara Boxer's testy reaction when someone called her ma'am, we know that formal titles are preferred.

My favorite is the generational defense. The same excuse they used with Senator Harry Reid. Both speak and behave like they're operating in a different era - one pre equal rights.  I’m not an ageist, but in these cases you can bet this DC fixture has worn out his welcome, and worn through the patience of Pennsylvanians.

I’m waiting for the feminist groups to chastise him but I’m not holding my breath. As one of my astute Twitter followers put it: “Do you think (notorious feminist) Maureen Dowd of the New York Times will hear a "settle down sweetie" in his remarks like she did a “You lie BOY” from Congressman Joe Wilson?” 

A Pennsylvanian myself, I could tell you Specter’s days are numbered. This comment is simply another nail in the coffin and more evidence that the Democratic Party – albeit a new home for Arlen – is coming unhinged.

Forget the fact that Specter's new party isn't popular already, establishment candidates are unpopular. Especially ones with bad manners. This stale and sexist mentality has no place in Washington, or in the workplace, and - party failures aside - this is enough of a reason to vote Specter and Reid out of power. The time in the real world could do them some good.

On Tuesday, voters in Massachusetts, a traditionally liberal stronghold, gave the Democrats their most devastating blow in ages by electing a long-shot Republican to the U.S. Senate. Just months earlier, New Jersey delivered a similar outcome in its gubernatorial election.

Both moves indicate that some states, including deeply blue New York, are poised to see party shifts in the next round of elections. With political analysts insisting that if it can happen in the Bay State it can happen in New York, and Republicans planning to aggressively pursue coveted seats in blue states, the left should be panicked, particularly when you look at the similarities.

Both Massachusetts and New York have largely left the Democratic Party in the driver's seat for years. The result has been overtaxing, overspending, out-of-control deficits and painfully high unemployment, triggering a palpable disgust across the electorate.

One key dissatisfied demographic group, in particular, has been the catalyst for the recent sea change: independents. Both Massachusetts and New York boast a significant number of unaffiliated voters. Though Democrats outnumber Republicans in both states, more than 51% of Massachusetts voters are unenrolled, permitting them to vote for either party. New York has not only the Independence Party - which has its own line on the ballot - but also a large group of unaffiliated voters who tend to swing in elections.

It's these swing voters, who voted for Scott Brown by a margin of 73% to 23%, who propelled him to victory in Massachusetts. They're also the group that broke largely for Barack Obama in 2008, and one that is now largely breaking away, displaying that nothing can be taken for granted.

All eyes are glued to the Massachusetts Senate race where upstart Republican Scott Brown is now in a dead heat with presumed shoo-in Martha Coakley. Non-partisan pollster and analyst Stuart Rothenberg recently and surprisingly placed the race into the “toss up” column. Some polls like Suffolk University/7News has Brown up four; PJM/Cross Target conducted on January 14^th have Brown 15 points ahead.

Many have speculated that residents are unhappy about the health reform bill Democrats are forcing through Congress. While this might be somewhat true, Massachusetts is facing its own challenges from fiscal disaster to deep debt, and a universal healthcare plan implemented by Mitt Romney that has become an unpopular cost-containment nightmare to an impending pension crisis.

The overtaxing and overspending is so pronounced that former Mass Governor Bill Weld says it’s sparked a “primeval reaction” that has transferred to a federal race.

"I think people in Massachusetts, like people all over the country, are suffering from accumulated spending fatigue.  First the TARP program, then the stimulus package, then further bailouts, then the price tag on the health care bill, then tax increases-- it has all added up to be too much for the average voter," Weld explains.

The reason for the shift in the race is that these issues are prompting disgust in a key demo: independents.

Many assume that the birthplace of Camelot, the Kennedys and ultra leftist institutions like Harvard translates to a Commonwealth dominated by liberals. Not so. Independents make up roughly 42% of the vote which is the reason Republicans, in recent years, have won statewide elections (Governors Romney, Paul Celucci, and Weld).

The role of the independent vote in the state, says Weld, is “dominant.”

“Independents are swing voters or else they wouldn’t choose to be unenrolled” (unenrolled refers to the status of the independents, meaning they can vote for the party of their choice in primaries).

Polling shows a consistent concern among independents nationally and locally. They oppose rabid, uncontrollable spending and one party control. They don’t like the idea that we’re charging our future to the US credit card and that Democrats hold the keys to the castles.

As a voting block, Independents prove that audiences aren’t monolithic. They’re pragmatic and solutions oriented. They’re turned off by overly politicized messages. They gather information differently, generally listening to the loudest voice in the cafeteria (Exhibit A: Tea Party protest footage).

As S.A. Miller writes in The Washington Times, “Democratic Party leaders were slow to recognize the spread of the anti-government tea party sentiment to a Democratic stronghold like Massachusetts, in a race that was once projected to be a cakewalk for Mrs. Coakley.”

Slow to recognize it? Democrats downright discounted and criticized the legitimacy and power of this growing movement. That arrogance is now their Achilles heel.

If Brown is able to pull off a win it’ll be a jaw-dropper and a crushing blow to the left. Not only will Brown serve as the 41^st vote in the Senate, allowing Republicans to block every legislative attempt by Democrats going forward, he’ll also show that even the most solid Democratic seats and strongholds are vulnerable because of the bad behavior of their party. Even if Brown comes close – within a few points – it spells bad news and will serve as an indication of what’s to come politically in the 2010 midterms.

Republicans should be paying attention to Brown’s strategy and message – and how Independents turn out and why. And Democrats? Well, they should be very afraid.

Soon, it will be the one-year anniversary of Barack Obama's inauguration. I remember that day, when a self-assured, idealistic icon who oozed bravado spoke of choosing "hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord."

The world watched as President Obama made history.

Twelve months later, he's still making history, albeit for the wrong reasons. Americans are more divided and discontented than ever. As a nation, we're less hopeful and filled with fear. One year later, the man who waxed optimistic is gone. He has been replaced by an unsure, demure and heavily weathered commander in chief. Record-high approval ratings have plummeted.

Though he's only at the beginning of his second year in office, it appears as if he's at the end of his seventh.

The Fierce Urgency of Two Weeks Later

President Obama’s speech on Thursday outlining the failures that led the government to miss a would-be terrorist bomber on Christmas Day demonstrated very clearly that after almost two weeks of dealing with a national security crisis he still has the wrong priorities. And, he can’t be on time -- even for the big stuff. Leading many to scratch their heads and wonder why that is particularly since after hours of delays the president had no news of any real substance to deliver.

After a more than a two hour delay, with many Americans wondering whether or not the White House could get its act together, President Obama took to the airwaves stage to tell us what we already knew. Though the administration had warned that the report would be “shocking” -- many viewers were only stunned by its anti-climactic predictability.

The policy of the speech was dull, obtuse and focused on getting the fatty layers of our federal bureaucracy to function like a well-oiled machine. Something that will never happen.

The language of the speech itself was an exercise in checking squares in a policy box. Obama tried to appease everyone, something he often tries to do in his oratory, but this time it was different. He didn’t even try to disguise his be-all-things-to-all-people efforts.

Could our president be uncomfortable dealing with terrorism?

Read more here.

President Obama approached the podium on Tuesday to let the nation know he returned from vacation and finally convened his security team for answers on how a man wearing a smoldering diaper almost blew up hundreds of people on Christmas Day. Obama stood at the podium, reading formulaically, and with a righteous indignation delivered a striking rebuke toward our intelligence community.

What did he expect?

While he's been apprehensive about acknowledging the current jihad, or holy war, against us, he's been waging his own on the U.S. intelligence community to appease his leftist base.

The Obama administration has been fiercely on the defense since the Christmas Day bomber's botched attempt to blow up an airplane with his explosives-covered thighs. The administration is operating in campaign mode - issuing statements, messaging through press releases and reactively hitting the airwaves while the President birdies and bogeys his way to the bottom of things.

The administration has also been trying to deflect and shift blame - a notorious campaign move - by hammering the GOP for playing politics in the hopes that it will scare off discord. But blaming former President George W. Bush will only make the Obama administration appear devoid of answers.

As Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) went after President Obama for his silence in the days that followed the attack, Democrats were pointing out that  Bush had waited as long, if not longer, after the 2001 shoe bombing. As though that's supposed to comfort anyone now.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was busy warning Washington against politicizing the attack. "This should not be a tug of war between the two political parties," he said.

Translation: We screwed up. Stop pointing it out. Please.