With the last of the primaries coming to an end around the nation, it is time to start looking at the elections in 2010.  Who will be the surprise winners, and who will have to buy boxes to pack up their offices and head home?  And will we see a change of power in the Congress?

In August, I plan to look at the races for the Senate as well as a few key races for the House.  The current word on the street is that the Republicans will regain the power in the House as well as breaking the super-majority of the Democrats in the Senate.  However, the Republicans are still viewed in a negative light and are constantly accused of triggering the economic meltdown in 2008.

I am not at a position yet to make any predictions yet, but hopefully by looking at these races, we might be able to get a better impression of what the future holds.  Remember, the old axiom of “all politics are local” holds true, so while there might be momentum against incumbents right now, I would not be surprised to see many unpopular politicians retain their jobs.  However, for the others, they should start saying their goodbyes and calling the moving companies to collect their packed boxes.

Does the US have a matriarch?  Now, before you scratch your head and wonder if I have lost my marbles, I want to direct you to an article written by one of our friends from SeededBuzz.  In the article “America Needs A Grandmother Lodge,” the author states:

Although Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were wise enough to utilize some of the unifying principles of the Haudenosaunee, they overlooked one the major ingredients which held the Native American commonwealth together and balanced it in peace. And this was the role and importance of the Clan Mother.

Each clan of the various nations had designated an elder wise woman of the Grandmother Lodge to serve as Clan Mother, who embodied the law and spirit of the clan. It was through her that the clan chiefs were designated, counseled, and disciplined. If, after several warnings, his actions threatened or disrupted the tranquility of the clan, the Clan Mother could impeach him and select another to serve in his place.

Obviously we do not have a living person serving as our matriarch, but the description the author reminds me of a few symbols of our nation that might already fill that role. For example, the Statue of Liberty is often used as a symbol of the purity and promise of our nation. To quote the movie “Ghostbusters 2,” the lead characters refer to the Statue in the following:

SPENGLER: We need something that everyone can get behind, a symbol –
STANTZ: Something that appeals to the best in each and every one of us –
SPENGLER: Something good –
VENKMAN: And pure –
WINSTON: And decent.

Their description of Lady Liberty matches a matriarch. On the other hand, we have another symbol that also fits the description. This symbol holds the nation together and, as stated by the author, can “impeach him and select another to serve in his place.” That symbol is our very own Constitution.

The Constitution is a living document that established the form of government and rule of law.  When our leaders (or “clan chiefs”) violate the rule of law while in office, there is a process of impeachment. The Constitution states:

Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article I, Section 3:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachments shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States, but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishmnet, according to Law.

The last symbol that comes to mind is not a single item or person, but rather the citizens of the United States themselves. While we are rarely unified in our positions on domestic and international issues, we are unified in the hope and promise our nation holds in-store for us. When those who we designate to run our nation no longer represent our beliefs, we counsel them through free speech or discipline them at the polling station.

Maybe the author was not looking in the right place for our nations Clan Mother. She’s not a single person, but rather the spirit we call the American Dream which is embodied in those that are proud to call themselves citizens of the United States.

The deposed Strongman of the Philippines made a rare appearance in local politics last week. Deposed from power in 1986, Marcos was exiled to Hawaii, where he and his wife Imelda found a safe home under the protection of the U.S. Government. It would seem odd for a formerly-deposed leader to make his way back into politics, especially when there are still outstanding court cases and accusations over the swindling of billions of dollars by the former leader during his 21 years in office. However, that isn’t as strange as the fact that his appearance comes 20 years after his death.

In a move seen as a way to increase her popular appeal in the current election to be the Representative of Ilocos Norte, the former first lady held a photo-op with the preserved body of her deceased husband. Dressed in formal attire, Ferdinand is shown lying in a climate-controlled glass coffin in a private mausoleum located next to their home in Batac. With approximately 30% of the voting demographic being too young to remember the controversy surrounding the former Strongman, the hope of showcasing the 80 year old Imelda as a loving widow might tip the election in her favor.

Another reason for his appearance is the debate over his final resting place. When he died while in exile, the wish was to bring his body back to the Philippines to be buried in the national cemetery with state honors. He was denied this right by his successor, Corazon Aquino. She was the widow of opposition leader Benigno Aquino. He was assassinated by members of the military with the assumption that the order came from Marcos himself. In a twist of irony, Imelda might not see her husband buried for at least another six years following this election.

The current front-runner in the Presidential election is the son of Benigno and Corazon Aquino. Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino has realized a bounce in the polls following the death of his mother last year. He has stated that many of the fiscal and social problems being faced by the Philippines today are the legacy of Marcos, and that he hasn’t done anything to warrant the honor of a state burial.

On a personal note, I was living in Hawaii when the Marcos were exiled to the island state. One of the long-running quips in my family centers around how Imelda brought over many of her famous shoes in diaper boxes. The television cameras were rolling as crew members were offloading box after box from the plane. Whenever we would see someone carrying a large diaper box or simply had too many boxes in their cars, we’d ask ourselves if they found more of Imelda’s shoes.

For the next few months after arriving in Hawaii, the news crews were chasing after the infamous first couple as they searched for a home and settle into their new lifestyle. While trying to put on a good face through the ordeal, Imelda would turn to the camera relucantly and wave and smile, but then turn back to her husbad and walk away from the cameras. After all these years later, her return to the media spotlight is within her classic Imelda-style – a smiling, motherly woman trying to care for her husband. Will it be enough to help her win the election? We’ll find out in a few weeks.

Sarah Palin was served a gimme on Tuesday and somehow missed the chance for a homerun. What I am talking about is her response to a question in front of a crowd of Republican and Tea Party members. This is the type of question a politician and talking head lives for but rarely see in an open forum.

She was asked what her advice would be to conservatives as they prepare for the midterm elections later this year. Her response? “Pick a Party.” Pick a party? Really? Here is her full response:

“Now the smart thing will be for independents who are such a part of this Tea Party movement to, I guess, kind of start picking a party,” Palin said. “Which party reflects how that smaller, smarter government steps to be taken? Which party will best fit you? And then because the Tea Party movement is not a party, and we have a two-party system, they’re going to have to pick a party and run one or the other: ‘R’ or ‘D’.”

Her statement is surprising for a few reasons. For starters, Palin labeled herself as a Maverick – willing to buck the system and her party. This was evident when she backed Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman over Republican Dede Scozzafava. Her endorsement catapulted Hoffman up in the polls, causing Scozzafava to eventually drop out.

One of the key complaints from the Tea Party movement and Independents around the country is that the “Parties” are dysfunctional and self-serving, leading to the problems our nation has today. The reason why Palin and the grassroots movement supported Hoffman was that they felt Scozzafava was too liberal and didn’t support a conservative position – making it difficult to define the difference between her and her Democrat challenger. This “blending” has placed the established Parties apart from the citizens who are essentially forced to choose between two parties.

That is why Palin’s comment about having “a two-party system” and that we have to choose between one of the two candidates they nominate is mind-boggling. Now I’m not saying the Tea Party movement should nominate their own candidates (a move that would probably split the Republican vote leading to more victories by the Democrats), but we do have greater flexibility who we can vote for to represent us in Washington. The correct response she should have given to the question is as follows:

My advice for Independents, Tea Party members, and Republicans alike is to examine the field of politicians running for office and asking for your votes. Not only are there Democrats and Republicans running for office, but also there are Conservative, Libertarian, Constitution, and Green Party candidates as well as qualified Independents seeking the responsibility of public office. Challenge them on their positions, look into their history, and ask if they are the best choice to make decisions that impact your life. When you identify the best candidate, support him or her and explain to others you know and meet why you feel he or she should be elected. If for some reason none of the candidates presented to you meet your expectations, approach your local Party office and tell them what you want in a candidate, and work with them to identify new candidates in future races.

Since Palin was speaking before a mixed yet friendly crowd, the above advice would have brought the groups closer together and work towards a more common goal. But by telling Independents and Tea Party supporters that they have to choose between either a Democrat or a Republican on the ballot makes Palin sound hypocritical. This is especially true when she wrote that the Tea Party movement is “a ground-up call to action that already has both political parties rethinking the way they do business” just two weeks earlier. You can’t intimidate the two dinosaur Parties if you telling people they have to choose one of their candidates.