The rise, fall and rise of Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton is a very smart, very hardworking public servant. Many believe she's more capable, focused and formidable than her husband. And she's on a mission to become the first female president. It's a quest she's been on since her election to the U.S. Senate from New York in 2000.

She won that election easily and was overwhelmingly re-elected in 2006. In the Senate, Clinton more than demonstrated that she knew the importance of being a workhorse and not a show pony. She understood that the smart move, given her ambition to return to the White House, was to put her mark on significant legislation and to be zealously attentive to serving her constituents.

But two months after her re-election to the Senate, Hillary Clinton announced the formation of an exploratory committee for her presidential bid. No one was surprised. She was the prohibitive favorite for the Democratic nomination. Her principal challengers were first-term Ill. Sen. Barack Obama and N.C. Sen. John Edwards. By October 2007, she was outpolling both of her rivals by wide margins. Her campaign took on an aura of invincibility, of inevitability.

But saddled with weakness at the top of her campaign staff and blinded by her hubris, Clinton succumbed to one of Satchel Paige's best lines — "Don't look back, something might be gaining on you." And that is just what Obama was doing — gaining on her. The centerpiece of his campaign, Hope And Change, was catching on.

He relentlessly pounded Clinton on her vote in favor of the Iraq War. And, unlike the Clinton campaign, he made a major effort in the caucus states where he built up about a 150-vote delegate cushion that Clinton never overcame. By June 2008, Clinton was forced to accept the fact that Obama was the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party. The Clintons had been crushed.

Many supposed that she was finished. But such an assumption about Clinton was then and is now foolhardy. On Dec. 1, 2008, President-elect Obama announced that he would nominate her to be secretary of state. A month later, she was confirmed by the Senate 94-2.

The book on Secretary Clinton's performance over the past four years is that she has been a superlatively successful secretary of state and one whose work ethic puts the Energizer Bunny to shame. That assessment is only half right. She has put the Energizer Bunny to shame. But on the matter that counts, America's foreign policy, it's a different story, a sorrier story.

Secretary Clinton cannot escape responsibility for the Obama administration's escalation of the war in Afghanistan. It is America's longest war and one of its most futile. But beyond the tragedy in Afghanistan, there is the question of the competence of American foreign policy throughout the Middle East.

Our relations with Israel have never been worse. Egypt is no longer a predictable partner, thanks to the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood. Syria is being torn apart by civil war that threatens neighboring states. Iran's quest for nuclear weapons continues, as does its malevolent export of terrorism through client organizations such as Hezbollah.

Perhaps most worrisome of all is Pakistan with its weak and unstable government, its nuclear arsenal and its renegade intelligence service, the ISI. And then there's Libya and al-Qaida's assault on our consulate in Benghazi on Sept. 11 of this year that resulted in the murder of our ambassador and three other Americans.

How one looks at this picture and concludes that Clinton will soon depart Foggy Bottom as one of the nation's greatest secretaries of state is mind-boggling.

But looking more closely at the Benghazi situation helps us understand Clinton's cleverness and luck. Appearing on "Meet The Press" and all the other Sunday talk shows on Sept. 16, Susan Rice, our United Nations ambassador, told the nation the Benghazi attack was in response to an anti-Muslim film. Her characterization of the attack was false, and we now know it was a terrorist attack.

But why was Rice the guest on "Meet The Press"? In fact, "Meet The Press" had invited Clinton, but she declined the invitation. The explanation we're left with comes from Rice, who has said Clinton had had a "brutal week." How convenient! The Energizer Bunny was plum tuckered out.

How about a different explanation? Hillary needed a patsy, and the patsy's name was Susan Rice. Rice, who knew she was likely to be named Clinton's successor, couldn't resist the opportunity to showcase herself on all five Sunday talk shows. In taking the bait, she destroyed herself.

And now we have the official report of the Accountability Review Board on Benghazi. The board, led by former U.N. Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Adm. Michael Mullen, places the blame for what went wrong squarely on the State Department. But then the report gives Clinton a pass. It states, "However, the board did not find reasonable cause to determine that any individual U.S. government employee breached his or her duty."

Once Clinton recovers from her current illness and concussion, she'll testify before Congress on Benghazi. She will express sorrow, accept the recommendations of the board, leave the mess to John Kerry and return to Chappaqua.

But by 2015, she'll be back to finish her mission, the journey from Goldwater Girl to president.

Please Visit:  Citizens Against Politics As Usual

Please Visit:  Mike Tower Political Opinions

Sandy Hook: Why the senseless slaughter?

Like all of you, I am at a loss to comprehend what happened last Friday at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The lives of 20 innocent young children and six of their teachers and administrators were extinguished by a madman as they were gathered to learn in a place they believed was safe from harm.

Why did it happen? How do we go forward in the face of such senseless depravity?

These are questions that I cannot answer adequately. But I do know that none of us should take solace in dodging them by attributing what happened to those children as a modern-day version of God exacting punishment on a broken and dark America, just as some believe he did thousands of years ago against his chosen people, the Jews of Ancient Israel. Such a view, wherever proclaimed, attempts to pass the buck of responsibility for murder to God, while simultaneously letting us off the hook as sinners.

What follows has helped me begin to cope with the fury, despair and hopelessness that overwhelmed me as I learned about the massacre of these children. Here are excerpts from comments on the Connecticut tragedy made by Tim Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City. Pastor Keller's thoughts get to the heart of a catastrophe like this, especially as Christmas approaches.

“As a minister, of course, I've spent countless hours with people who are struggling and wrestling with the biggest question — the why question in the face of relentless tragedies and injustices.

“First, we have to recognize that the problem of tragedy, injustice and suffering is a problem for everyone no matter what their beliefs are. Now, if you believe in God and for the first time experience or see horrendous evil, you rightly believe that that is a problem for your belief in God, and you're right — and you say, ‘How could a good and powerful God allow something like this to happen?'

“But it's a mistake to think that if you abandon your belief in God it somehow is going to make the problem easier to handle. If there is no God or higher divine law and the material universe is all there is, then violence is perfectly natural — the strong eating the weak! And yet, somehow, we still feel this isn't the way things ought to be. Why not? I'm just trying to make the point that the problem of injustice and suffering is a problem for belief in God but it is also a problem for disbelief in God. So abandoning belief in God does not really help in the face of it.

“Second, I believe we need to grasp an empowering hint from the past. When people ask the big question, ‘Why would God allow this or that to happen?', there are almost always two answers. The one answer is: Don't question God! He has reasons beyond your finite little mind. And therefore, just accept everything. Don't question. The other answer is: I don't know what God's up to — I have no idea at all about why these things are happening. There's no way to make any sense of it at all. Now I would like to respectfully suggest the first of these answers is too hard and the second is too weak because, though of course we don't have the full answer, we do have an idea, an incredibly powerful idea.

“One of the great themes of Hebrew Scriptures is that God identifies with the suffering. I think the texts are saying God binds up his heart so closely with suffering people that he interprets any move against them as a move against him. Christians believe that in Jesus, God's son, divinity became vulnerable to and involved in — suffering and death.

“But it is on the cross that we see the ultimate wonder. On the cross we sufferers finally see, to our shock, that God now knows, too, what it is to lose a loved one in an unjust attack. We don't know the reason that God allows evil and suffering to continue, but we know what the reason isn't, what it can't be. It can't be that he doesn't love us. It can't be that he doesn't care. God so loved us and hates suffering that he was willing to come down and get involved in it. And therefore the cross is an incredibly empowering hint. OK, it's only a hint, but if you grasp it, it can transform you.

“And lastly, we have to grasp an empowering hope for the future. In John 11 we hear Jesus say: I am the resurrection and the life! Resurrection means the restoration to us of the life we lost.

“Oh, I know what many of you are saying, ‘I wish I could believe that.' And guess what? This idea is so potent that you can go forward with that. To even want the resurrection, to love the idea of the resurrection, to long for the promise of the resurrection even though you are unsure of it, is strengthening.”

Pastor Keller's thoughts have strengthened me. My prayer is that they will strengthen you, too.

Senate's mantra: ‘No prisoners'

Senate's mantra: ‘No prisoners'

I'll bet you've never given any thought to the connection between the movie "Lawrence of Arabia" and the U.S. Senate. Neither have I, until recently.

Directed by David Lean and with Peter O'Toole in the title role, "Lawrence of Arabia" was far and away the blockbuster movie of 1962. It was nominated for 10 Academy Awards and won seven, including best picture.

Lawrence was a lieutenant in the British Army stationed in Cairo as World War I began. At its outset, Europe had divided itself into two vast and opposing alliances. The Triple Entente included Great Britain, France, Russia and the Arab rebels. The Triple Alliance included Germany, Austria-Hungary and what remained of the once proud Ottoman Empire, which included Turkey and most of the Arabian Peninsula. The Arabs chafed under Ottoman rule, and the British, anxious to protect the Suez Canal, sought to exploit the restive Arab rebels.

Lawrence was the perfect man for the job. He was expert in his knowledge of the Bedouins. His loyalties were deeply divided between Britain and the Arab rebels. He was charismatic, daring and self-absorbed to a fault.

Near the end of the movie, with the Ottoman Turks in retreat, Lawrence and his Arab mercenaries encounter a column of Turkish soldiers. The slaughter that ensues is ghastly and is undertaken in reprisal of the Turks having recently annihilated all the inhabitants of the nearby town of Tafas.

As Lawrence and his men charge the Turks, Lawrence cries, "NO PRISONERS, NO PRISONERS." The Turkish column is butchered.

Lawrence, his dishdasha spattered with blood, is in a surreal, mad trance brought on by the sheer joy of what he has done. In his book "Seven Pillars of Wisdom," T.E. Lawrence refers to the incident and says, "In a madness born of the horror of Tafas we killed and killed."

Lawrence and his Arab followers outpace the British Army to Damascus. But even with his inspirational leadership, the Arab rebels can't even agree on how to keep the lights on in the city. They leave Damascus to the British Army and melt back into the desert. The Arab Spring will have to wait for at least another century.

So what's all this got to do with the Senate? Plenty. Now don't get me wrong. If we were to send NCIS' forensic specialist, Abby Sciuto, into the Senate Chamber to analyze the carpeting, she would not find samples of blood. But that doesn't mean that something lethal isn't going on there. It is!

And it is a lethality that is almost completely disguised by the Senate's rules, procedures and obsession with the appearance of decorum. But for the Senate to work, it must be able to forge bipartisan alliances on major legislation. That means there must be a large cadre of senators from both parties who are willing to compromise. That cadre is shrinking, and shrinking rapidly. It's a casualty of the Senate's current mantra: NO PRISONERS, NO PRISONERS.

In the 2010 election cycle, 12 senators chose not to run, the highest number in 75 years. This year, another 10 will be gone. And many of the them are the ones whose careers are replete with bipartisan compromise. What's being lost is the connective tissue that holds the Senate together and enables it to function.

No single loss even approaches the magnitude of the loss in 2009 of Sen. Edward Kennedy to brain cancer. Although many don't know it, especially here in the South, Kennedy had no peer when it came to forging workable legislative accommodation on bills that were intensely controversial.

Without doubt, his highest priority was achieving health care reform. His work on it began in the early 1970s as chairman of the Health Subcommittee, and it never ended. Had he been in the Senate in 2009-2010, the course of the legislation would have been profoundly altered — for the better. Would he have openly opposed President Barack Obama? Of course not. But behind the scenes a different, better, bipartisan bill would have taken shape.

Here's a sampler of why senators are retiring:

Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., said: "There is too much partisanship and not enough progress, too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving."

Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, said figuratively of Congress: "I think we have to blow the place up."

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said: "I have spoken on the floor of the Senate for years about the dysfunction and political polarization in the institution. ... There is no practical incentive for 75 percent of the senators to work across party lines."

Sen. Paul Kirk, D-Mass., the man who was appointed to fill Ted Kennedy's seat, denounced the raw politics in the Senate.

Make no mistake about it, the long knives are drawn, and the Senate is hemorrhaging. And don't believe for a moment that all the blame is attributable to the Republicans and the tea party. The responsibility for this institutional crisis rests squarely on the shoulders of both parties, and the Democrats have the majority.

You have to look no further than the two leaders, Democrat Harry Reid and Republican Mitch McConnell, to find the heart of the problem. Think of them as pathetic versions of Lawrence of Arabia and the Turkish commander at Tafas.

How do those two bozos hold power? They get it from bozos like Kay Hagan and Richard   Burr, who get their power from bozos like us!

Please Visit:  Citizens Against Politics As Usual

Please Visit:  Mike Tower Political Opinions

Peaches, pineapple and Dangerous Dave 

David Petraeus was born in 1952. He graduated in the top 5 percent of his class at the U.S. Military Academy in 1974. While a cadet at the academy, he dated and subsequently married Holly Knowlton, the daughter of the then-West Point superintendent and four-star Gen. William Knowlton. They have two children.

Petraeus was promoted to general in 2007 and in February of that year became commander of our forces in Iraq. In October 2008, he became commander of CENTCOM in Tampa, Fla., which is responsible for U.S. military operations in 20 countries from Egypt to Pakistan. In July 2010, Petraeus became the commanding general of our forces in Afghanistan. In July 2011, he retired from the military and was appointed director of the CIA.

One month ago, Petraeus' world imploded as the details of his affair with his biographer, Army Reserve Lt. Col. Paula Broadwell, became public.

On first blush, it would appear that all we have here is the tale of a super-achieving military officer and director of Central Intelligence brought down by his inability to keep his trousers zipped. And, given the fact that adultery is no longer problematic for millions of Americans, there is little doubt that many see the Petraeus-Broadwell affair as little more than an irrelevancy.

But, in fact, there is much more here to be troubled about than the sexual exploits of Broadwell and the man she called "Peaches" and "Dangerous Dave."

In a lengthy story in Newsweek in 2010, Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, stated, "Afghanistan is very much Barack Obama's war of choice, a point that the president underscored recently by picking Gen. David Petraeus to lead an intensified counterinsurgency effort there."

American forces initially went to Afghanistan in 2001 to oust the Taliban and deny al-Qaida the use of that country as a training ground for international terrorism. They succeeded. The Taliban was defeated and most of the terrorists were killed or fled.

One can hardly underestimate the difference between the Afghan war in its early years and what it became in 2010 with Petraeus' counterinsurgency strategy as the sharp end of Obama's escalation of the war.

Obama's escalation equated the resurgence of the Taliban with the return of al-Qaida, an assumption that has never been proven. And it led to Obama turning what was a war of necessity for the United States in 2001 into a war of choice — Obama's choice. And Obama's choice was to attempt to strengthen the will and capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and the Karsai government in Kabul so that together they could successfully secure Afghanistan's future.

Although Petraeus' counterinsurgency strategy worked in Iraq, it has failed in Afghanistan. In Iraq, we had a willing partner, the Sunni Muslims. In Afghanistan, we lack such a partner. Haass concluded that "the war the United States is now fighting in Afghanistan is not succeeding and is not worth waging in this way."

He was right at the time he made that assessment in the summer of 2010, and more than two years later, it's still correct. Murderous "insider attacks" by Afghan security forces against the American troops who trained them is not a metric that could justify yet another medal or ribbon on Petraeus' service jacket. There are enough of them there already to cause curvature of the spine.

However, Petraeus managed to leave Afghanistan before being tarnished with the fallout from his failed strategy. Barton Gellman, who writes Spyfall in Time Magazine, tells us, "Patraeus' move from rock-star four-star to head of the CIA in 2011 came as a surprise in Washington. He had served only a year in Afghanistan and seemed destined to rise to the top of the military at the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But former CIA director Bob Gates told him otherwise: Obama's White House did not want him in that role. It was Petraeus' idea in response, to move to Langley, a close friend says. That solved a lot of problems for Obama, allowing him good use of the general's talents and diverting him from a possible presidential bid."

Imagine that John McCain had been elected president in 2008, and Petraeus had sold his Afghan counterinsurgency strategy to him. The entire Democratic Party would have been in the streets in protest, and leading the parade would have been the junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama!

Petraeus is an extreme example of a military culture gone nuts. How about escorts of 28 police motorcycles for him to visit socialite Jill Kelley in Tampa? How about executive jets, palatial homes, drivers, security guards, gourmet chefs and string quartets for their dinner parties? Is it any wonder that when he got to Langley, Peaches/Dangerous Dave insisted that fresh pineapple be available at his beside each night? Wonder if he was thoughtful enough to have pineapple for two on the nights he was with his paramour, Paula?

There are more than a thousand generals and admirals. Not one of them had the courage to resign over an Afghan war policy that was ill-conceived and has failed. Retired Army Col. Jack Jacobs, a Medal of Honor recipient in Vietnam, recently stated that we'd be better off getting rid of two-thirds of them. If he's wrong, he's wrong on the low side.

Please Visit:  Citizens Against Politics As Usual

Please Visit:  Mike Tower Political Opinions

The Petraeus ‘damsels in distress'

Paula Broadwell was born in 1972. She was valedictorian and homecoming queen of her high school graduating class. She graduated from West Point in 1995. She was a fitness devotee who excelled in triathlons and who described herself No. 1 in fitness in her class at West Point. However, the academy has stated that she didn't win the fitness award and that it went to another female cadet in her class. Broadwell is married and has two young sons.

She initially met Gen. David Petraeus when she was a doctoral student at Harvard in 2006. But in 2007 Broadwell was asked to leave the doctoral program at Harvard. Her course work did not meet its standards. She then chose to rework her unfinished dissertation into what became her best-selling biography of Petraeus, a book ghostwritten by Vernon Loeb of The Washington Post.

Shortly after leaving Harvard in 2008, Broadwell attempted to become an inside player in Washington's foreign policy establishment by suggesting that the new commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, had asked her to assemble a "red team" to conduct an outsider evaluation of Afghan war strategy. But McChrystal had not made such a request, and her proposal was rejected.

In June 2010, President Barack Obama fired McChrystal and replaced him with Petraeus. Shortly thereafter, Broadwell started making trips to Afghanistan. She traveled there about a half-dozen times and would typically stay in theater for two or three weeks each time. There she spent a great deal of time with Petraeus.

In January 2012, the book that she and Loeb wrote was published. Broadwell quickly followed its publication with a nationwide publicity tour.

In September 2011, Petraeus retired, and Obama appointed him to head the CIA. He lasted 14 months. He submitted his resignation last month because of an FBI investigation that documented an extramarital affair with Broadwell.

Petraeus has repeatedly stated that the affair began after he retired from the military. Determining when Broadwell and Petraeus "imbedded" each other is important. If it began while Petraeus was still in uniform, he's subject to prosecution for adultery.

In July, as the FBI investigation into all of this was reaching its climax, Broadwell was consumed by the desire to find just the right 60th birthday gift for her lover. It was to be a surprise birthday bike ride for the two of them with none other than Lance Armstrong. In one way, Broadwell's plan was perfect — Armstrong, like Broadwell and Petraeus, was living a lie. But, of course, there was no birthday ride, no "three dopes a-doping." Instead, Broadwell's new job was to "lawyer up."

In February, Broadwell told Inspired Woman magazine, "Yes, I wear a number of hats, but my most important title is mom and wife." Really?

For reasons that may be irrational or real, Broadwell believed that a socialite in Tampa, Jill Kelley, posed a threat to her affair with Petraeus. Kelley frequently entertained senior officers from CENTCOM, including Petraeus and Marine Gen. John Allen, in her palatial home.

In May 2012, Kelley contacted a local FBI agent she knew and claimed she was being cyberstalked.

The FBI investigation that followed identified that the threatening emails were written by Broadwell and signed, "kelleypatrol." As the FBI combed through all the information it had gathered from Broadwell, it discovered her extramarital affair with Petraeus.

Kelley, like Broadwell, has been living a lie. She wanted everyone, especially the elites and the powerful, to believe her life was devoted to helping the military as a volunteer. But the reality is stunningly different. The Doctor Kelley Cancer Foundation that she and her physician husband established to conduct cancer research and help cancer victims has been spending its money on travel, meals and entertainment.

Kelley and her husband have been sued at least nine times, according to the Tampa Bay Times. Regions Bank is attempting to foreclose on their $1.5 million mansion. Last year, a judge ordered foreclosure on an office building the Kelleys own in Tampa and upon which the Kelleys owe $2.2 million. The couple has defaulted on a $250,000 line of credit.

However, Kelley was successful in getting both Petraeus and Allen to intervene in a civilian child custody case involving her twin sister, Natalie Khawam. The judge in the case, Neal Kravitz, was not persuaded by the letters written by the generals. He ruled that Kelley's sister had misrepresented "virtually everything" and awarded custody of the child to her estranged husband. Khawam is now being sued for not paying her divorce lawyer.

ABC News has obtained emails that suggest that Kelley attempted to cover her mounting debt by securing a multibillion-dollar Korean business deal. It fell through. The security threat in something like this is real. Here you have a family in desperate financial straits that is intimately connected to the highest echelon of the nation's military. What better target is there for a hostile foreign intelligence service?

Turns out that Kelley and Broadwell do have something in common — Kelley has lawyered up, too. The Kelleys have hired big-name attorney Abbe Lowell as well as crisis manager Judy Smith, who represented Monica Lewinsky. Hopefully, Lowell and Smith have signed on for the publicity and not because they expect to be paid.

Please Visit:  Citizens Against Politics As Usual

Please Visit:  Mike Tower Political Opinions

             It's time for Republican soul-searching

Sorting out how the Republicans got butchered at the polls two weeks ago is essential if the GOP is to have any hope of rising from the ashes of its defeat.

President Barack Obama was not re-elected because the economy had turned the corner or because unemployment had been whipped. Far from it. President Obama was not re-elected because he had set forth a bold agenda for a second term that resonated with most Americans. He didn't. No, President Obama was vulnerable to defeat, yet he was re-elected handily.

How did it happen?

First off, luck has been his handmaiden throughout his two decades in public life. And more importantly, his campaign team is a superbly well-oiled and effective machine. But Obama's luck and his organization don't come close to adequately explaining why the GOP lost an election it could have won.

Fundamentally, the Romney campaign did not grasp the profoundly changing nature of America and its electorate. It was a fatal error.

Only 39 percent of white voters cast their ballots for President Obama two weeks ago. But the President took 93 percent of the black vote, 71 percent of the Hispanic vote and 73 percent of the Asian vote.

In 1992, whites made up 87 percent of those who voted for president. In 1996, it was 83 percent. In 2000, it was 81 percent. In 2004, it was 77 percent. In 2008, it was 74 percent. And this year, it was 71 percent! Get the picture? Obama got the picture, but Mitt Romney didn't. The changing face of America was the blind spot in Romney's rearview mirror — a fatal blind spot.

To put a bow on all of this, let's drill down a little deeper into one component of the electorate that has been and is crucial to the GOP — evangelical Christians.

In the crucial battleground state of Ohio, which every Republican must carry in order to win the White House, Democrats rely on building huge majorities in Cleveland in order to offset Republican votes downstate. In 2004, the Democrats and John Kerry believed Cleveland's black vote would put Ohio away for them. They were wrong. President George W. Bush carried Ohio by 2 percent.

The sharp point of the spear for evangelicals in Ohio and elsewhere in 2004 was their opposition to same-sex marriage. According to Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, same-sex marriage "was the hood ornament on the family values wagon that carried the president to a second term."

Nationally President Bush won 79 percent of evangelical Christians and 52 percent of Catholics. It was enough to win.

This year, evangelicals turned out in massive numbers and voted for Romney as heavily as they did for President Bush in 2004, according to Ralph Reed, chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition. Two weeks ago, the evangelical vote was a record-setting 27 percent of the electorate. It was 10 percent better than John McCain received four years ago.

Two-thirds of Catholic voters who attend mass on a regular basis voted for Romney. In addition, Billy Graham and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association bought full-page ads in multiple major newspapers on behalf of Romney in the run-up to election day.

The president of Ohio Christian University, Mark Smith, stated prior to the election, "The intensity of the voters in the faith community is as high as I've seen it in the last 12 years."

But an effort of this magnitude, that has in the past led to victory, fell short this year. While Romney won among white Catholics 59 percent to 40 percent, he lost the overall Catholic vote because the president won 75 percent of Hispanic Catholics. President Obama also won 95 percent of black Protestants, 70 percent of Jewish voters and 70 percent of religiously unaffiliated voters, which is the fastest growing religious group in the nation. Only 36 percent of young voters supported Romney.

According to Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., "Our message was rejected by millions of Americans who went to the polls and voted according to a contrary worldview." Mohler referred to the passage of same-sex marriage and the legalization of marijuana as "a seismic shift in the culture."

According to Michael Gerson, an op-ed columnist for The Washington Post, a Republican and one who was named by Time magazine as one of the 25 most influential Evangelicals in America, "It is more advisable than ever to make public arguments about morality in aspirational rather than judgmental ways. The next Republican campaign will need a candidate with a genuine, creative passion for inclusion."

Mohler said, "Evangelicals need to reach beyond their suburban walls. If we do not become the movement of younger Americans and Hispanic Americans, then we will just become a retirement community. And that cannot serve the cause of Christ."

Mohler's on to something worthy of reflection and introspection by evangelical Christians. Too many of their number already fit his description of a retirement community.

How the Republican Party and its most ardent group of supporters, evangelical Christians, choose to deal with upheaval in American culture and electoral politics will be fascinating to witness.

Their initial reaction is likely to be one of denial and anger. If that's as far as it goes, their days will be numbered.

And know this: If the GOP deludes itself that victory in 2016 can be achieved by simply putting a Hispanic on the ticket, it will punch another Democrat's ticket to the White House.

Please Visit:  Citizens Against Politics As Usual

Please Visit:  Mike Tower Political Opinions

              GOP imploding, do not resuscitate

This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers here or use the "Reprints" tool that appears above any article. Order a reprint of this article now.

President Barack Obama has been easily re-elected, winning 332 electoral votes. In my column last Tuesday, I predicted that Mitt Romney would win with 279 electoral votes and that the president would lose with 259. Readers of this space are owed an explanation and an apology.

Let's start by going back a year and a half to one of my columns published in the Asheville Citizen-Times in which I stated, "I thought I might as well go ahead and predict the 2012 election. President Obama will be re-elected, and in the Electoral College it won't be close. He may not win a few of the states that he carried in 2008 like North Carolina and Indiana, but he will win about 325 electoral votes.

"How can this be? After all, the economy is fragile at best. Food and energy prices continue to escalate. Half the country wants no part of Obama's health legislation. The answer hides in plain sight — the spectacular disintegration of the Republican Party."

If I had the outcome of the presidential election nailed 18 months ago, how in the world did I miss it so badly in my column published five days ago? Here's how I blew it.

In fact, last weekend I wrote two Election Day columns. The first of the two was written by The Shadow. Its bottom line stated, "President Obama cobbles together just enough votes in the battleground states to win a second term. To win the election, Romney must win Ohio. He won't. The final electoral count will be Obama 290 and Romney 248."

The second column was written by LeRoy. It called for Romney to win Ohio and to win the election with 279 electoral votes. Holy Toledo!

My error, for which I apologize, was to submit LeRoy's column and not The Shadow's column for publication last week. The painful lesson is that one messes with The Shadow at one's own peril.

The unmistakable takeaway from last Tuesday's election is that the Republican Party is imploding. The abundant and compelling evidence of its self-inflicted self-destruction is starkly clear.

Readers of this space know well that my heaviest artillery is reserved for the wingnuts of both the right and the left. Both political parties are loaded with wingnuts. But there is an important difference. The left wingnuts do not control or dominate the Democratic Party.

But the right wingnuts have taken control of the Republican Party dating to their ascendancy in 2010 when 87 members of the tea party were elected to the House of Representatives. Over the past two years, they have embarked upon a scorched earth policy with but a single purpose — the defeat of President Obama. Obviously that policy has failed.

In the process, the tea party has turned House Speaker John Boehner into its puppet, refused to compromise on major legislation, and now shows every intention of continuing its take-no-prisoners approach.

These folks live in a delusional world that presumes most Americans can or will come to share their beliefs. Such a presumption is preposterous, and the election results last Tuesday prove it.

The face of the American electorate is changing — rapidly. The Democrats win nationally not because their ideas and policies are so appealing — think Obamacare and stimulus — but because the Democrats understand the essentiality of reaching out to the increasingly diverse society that America has become, especially including Latinos.

The Republicans mindlessly wrote off the nation's African-Americans decades ago and got away with it. Now they are writing off the nation's Latinos, and it's a guaranteed death wish. In 2004, President George W. Bush won re-election with 40 percent of the Hispanic vote. In 2008, John McCain lost with 31 percent. Romney only got a pathetic 27 percent of the Hispanic vote.

It is the explosive growth of America's Hispanic community that has turned states like California, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado and Virginia from red to blue or purple. Coming along right behind them are North Carolina, Arizona, Florida and Texas.

The Republican Party is no longer competitive from Maine to North Carolina. It can't win in the Rust Belt from Pennsylvania to the Mississippi River. And it can't compete in California or the Pacific Northwest.

In fact, the GOP only holds sway in a shrinking number states in the Great Plains and the South that, unlike the rest of the nation, are homogeneously white.

Romney foolishly attempted to placate the dominant, extremists forces that call the shots in the GOP in order to get the nomination. They agreed to a marriage of convenience, but the American people annulled that marriage last Tuesday.

Now the GOP must decide to change or to die. While the answer to that question is abundantly clear to most of us, don't think for a moment that the outcome of the internal debate within the GOP is obvious.

You can be assured that most of the tea party folks will look at last week's election and conclude the problem was that the Republicans nominated a moderate rather than a true believer. Thus they will conclude that the party must move further to the right.

If they win the civil war that's about to begin in the party, it's not all bad because that will hasten the extinction of a brain-dead elephant.

Please Visit:  Citizens Against Politics As Usual

Please Visit:  Mike Tower Political Opinions

BLUE RIDGE LECTURE—2012, WHO WON TOMORROW'S ELECTION

INTRODUCTION

Thank you and I'm very glad to be back. Let me tell you how I'm planning to organize our time this afternoon. First of all I want you to know that I'm planning to leave more time than I have in past lectures for your questions. Given as close as the race for the White House appears to be, I want you to have ample time to raise your questions about that or any other matter you wish.

I'm going to begin by telling you about a proposal that I had the opportunity to get into the hands of the Romney Campaign shortly after he and his debate coach, Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, were in Asheville about three weeks ago.

Then I plan to reveal The Shadows predictions for the House, Senate, and the White House. As many of you know, the predictions for the House were published in my T-N column yesterday, and the predictions for the Senate and the Presidency will be published tomorrow.

Finally, before we get to your questions, I plan to talk a bit about who lost tomorrow's election.

Now before I outline this proposal that I sent to Governor Romney let's deal with the bias sending such a proposal implies—that I'm a Republican. I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, though in past incarnations I've been both. I'm registered as Unaffiliated. And I suppose that many of you know that T-N's op-ed columnist, Mike Tower, and I co-founded CAPAU—Citizens Against Politics As Usual-- about a year ago. CAPAU calls for the defeat of all Incumbents in Washington, and Barack Obama is an incumbent. If you have questions about our aversion to all incumbents, please raise them in the Q&A session.

In fact one of the things that I enjoy the most about reactions to my columns in the Times-News are those that accuse me of being a closet Democrat or a closet Republican. The discerning reader knows that I turn my heavy artillery on wingnuts of both the Left and the Right.

PROPOSAL TO ROMNEY CAMPAIGN

So, here's what I sent to Governor Romney in mid-October:

“Let's suppose the Romney Campaign believed that it would prevail on November 6^th with a strategy the essence of which assaulted the glaring inadequacies of the Obama Administration's stewardship over the past four years. While there is no doubt that the Obama Administration has failed to deal adequately with the nation's gnawing problems, such a strategy was insufficient from the outset and without a doubt it has not succeeded.

However, the dynamics of the presidential race shifted fundamentally in Governor Romney's favor on October 3^rd as a consequence of his brilliant debate showing, especially when coupled with the president's diffident lack of engagement.

But in that clear victory at the University of Denver danger lurks, real danger. To assume that the win in Denver and the surge toward Governor Romney in the polls that it has produced will assure victory on November 6^th is false. It won't. Because, while Denver stopped the bleeding and reversed the momentum, it did not close the deal with enough voters in the Swing States.

Something more is essential to achieve victory. And that something must be both grander and more substantive than anything the Romney Campaign or the Governor himself has articulated thus far.

The American people, even though they are more polarized and disheartened than any of us have witnessed in our lifetime, are way ahead of politicians and the Government in Washington. They no longer believe in their elected leaders. If they could, they would put all of Washington into Chapter 11. And that means the ONLY path to victory for Governor Romney is one that not only demonstrates that he comprehends the magnitude of the nation's frustration and real peril, but also that he has a formula that holds out real hope for fundamental change in America.

That's right. We're talking about HOPE AND CHANGE. But this time it must be the real deal, not a political slogan.

Repeating the tired and true nostrums like “Washington's the problem, the states are the solution”, or “We must have more defense spending”, or “I'll reform the tax code, but I won't tell you the painful part”, won't get Governor Romney across the finish line. It probably will bamboozle the base, but it won't garner enough Independents in places like the I-4 Corridor, Northern Virginia, Merrimack County New Hampshire, Franklin and Hamilton Counties in Ohio, Columbia County, Wisconsin, Polk County, Iowa, Arapahoe and Jefferson Counties in Colorado, and Clark County Nevada.

No, he must say and keep saying from now to Election Day what the American people already know. America is at a tipping point. America no longer has the luxury of kicking the can down the road. We have no choice but to seize the future or relinquish our national heritage—a heritage which was born in the crucible of war and suffering and which has been a beacon of freedom and individual dignity to all of humanity since Valley Forge. We have reached the point in our national life where either we begin a slow, but inevitable decline, or we have the resolve and are willing to make the sacrifices necessary to assure America's rendezvous with destiny.

And having said that, Governor Romney must then explain to the American people how together we will restore our self confidence, restore our economy, and restore the preeminence of America's unique experiment in self governance, democracy, and individual freedom.

And in describing that restoration and how it will be accomplished, Governor Romney must make explicitly clear that it can only be accomplished on a bipartisan basis. An American Restoration by definition is one that Americans broadly support. The enactment of Social Security in 1935 included 97 Republicans in Congress. The enactment of Medicare in 1965 had the support of 83 Republicans. The only road forward on the profound issues facing the nation is the broadly bipartisan road. And to that end Governor Romney must break new ground. He must be willing to be daring and bold. He must find a way to tell the American people that he not only understands the paralysis in Washington, but that he will end it.

Only a President has the ability to successfully overcome the paralysis that grips Washington. Only a President has a chance to break the logjam of hatred and bitterness that has consumed both parties on Capitol Hill. To do that Governor Romney must explain to the American people that the paralysis of the Government is a NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT of the highest order. He must convince the voters that it is as real and as dangerous as were the Great Depression, Pearl Harbor, and 9/11.

Governor Romney must say that preventing our economy from going over the fiscal cliff can only be accomplished with bipartisan support of the American people and the Democrats on Capitol Hill. And he must pledge that he will openly support each and every member of Congress who will join the effort to restore American greatness. He needs to say that he understands that his job as president will require him to forge consensus with the Democrats AND to support those who join him. Let the magnitude of those last two sentences sink in. Acting on those two sentences will profoundly change everything in Washington—for the better. It will create a race to the middle by members of both parties in the House and the Senate. It will create the condition necessary for the passage of major legislation on a bipartisan basis. And it will isolate and make irrelevant the extremists at both ends of the political spectrum.

Yes, this is radical. Yes, it is risky. Yes, it will create some angst in the GOP base. But—it will work, and when it does—the icy grip of paralysis in Washington will begin to melt. It will begin to melt because throughout the nation a broad consensus will have developed that will demand that the bipartisan calculus that President Romney has begun to forge be nurtured, sustained, and expanded. It's what the Founding Fathers called Democracy.

But we're not there yet, are we? What is the substance of what must be put in place under President Romney's leadership and with bipartisan support on the Hill? If Governor Romney can answer that question beginning with the debate at Hofstra on October 16th and then hammer it home as the centerpiece of the Romney/Ryan Campaign right up to Election Day, he will win. And even though it's likely the Democrats will still control the Senate on November 7^th, the seeds of bipartisanship that candidate Romney will have sewn in the closing days of the Campaign will mean that the days of stalemate on the Hill will be numbered.

SO, WHAT IS TO BE DONE?

America's caught in a vice that is destroying our economy—both the private economy and the public economy. The recent economic meltdown that took hold, as the Bush Administration was ending, flushed over $14 trillion dollars of America's net worth down the toilet. It has destroyed consumer confidence, the driver of our national economy. It has caused American businesses to retain about $2 trillion dollars on their balance sheets because of their uncertainty with respect to whether and how the Government in Washington will cope with the growing economic darkness. It has exploded the national debt to the point that our ability to meet the demands of our creditors has been threatened. It has precipitated the first downgrade of America's credit worthiness in the nation's history. It has produced intractable and sustained unemployment for 23 million American workers. The reality of those relentless economic forces, when coupled with the distrust and hatred between Democrats and Republicans in Washington, are the jaws of the vice that now has the nation in its grip.

Governor Romney has proposed a 5 Point plan to address these problems. His 5 Point program is good as far as it goes. But it doesn't go nearly far enough. In addition, it lacks the kind of traction that will be required to energize and galvanize enough American voters to elect him on November 6^th.

Governor Romney urgently needs to transform it into something much grander—something much bolder—something that a clear majority of Americans can understand and support. Let's call it the AMERICAN ECONOMIC RENNAISANCE, (AER).

What the AER does is to consolidate Governor Romney's 5 Point program into a single message that tells the nation that energy independence is the key that will unshackle our stagnant economy. Achieving energy independence will simultaneously ignite our moribund economy, create millions of good paying and sustainable jobs, rebuild the nation's decaying and obsolete infrastructure, generate a sustained surge in tax revenue that will wipe out the deficit, while at the same time provide the funding necessary for essential government programs and services, and enable the United States to begin to reduce the national debt substantially.

These are not promises to be made lightly, especially since on first blush such promises will appear to be either foolhardy or a lie. Neither is the case! The beauty and simplicity of something that sounds almost too good to be true--is that in this case it is true!

Beneath America lie vast reserves of natural gas and oil. The miracle of America's rebirth and the fuel for America's Economic Renaissance are right under our feet. Safely extracting it, and the technology exists that will enable us to extract it without posing grave risk to our environment, is what will break the grip of the vice that threatens our economy, our national security, our freedom, and our way of life.

The estimated royalty payments to the Government from these reserves under public lands are estimated to be $37.5 trillion dollars. THAT'S TRILLION! That's more than twice the current national debt of $16 trillion dollars! Do I have your attention now?

The map of the lower 48 states oil and gas shale plays from the Energy Information Administration makes evident that about 25 states have significant reserves of oil and/or gas. The principal oil shale play is located at the Green River Formation in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, while the largest gas shale play is the Marcellus Formation covering much of New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio.

In July 2011 the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy reported that the lower 48 states have a total of 750 trillion cubic feet of recoverable shale gas with more than half of it located at the Marcellus Formation The total amount of recoverable natural gas resources when Alaska and offshore sites are included soars to 4.2 quadrillion cubic feet of natural gas according to the Institute for Energy Research.

That is enough natural gas to meet the nation's electricity demands for 575 years, enough natural gas to supply homes heated by natural gas for 857 years, and it's more natural gas than Russia, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkmenistan combined!

Our reserves of shale oil are equally impressive. The Green River Formation in the inter-mountain west contains about 3 trillion barrels of oil. In recent testimony before the House Energy Subcommittee, the General Accountability Office testified that the Federal Government was in a unique position to influence the development of this oil shale because about three-quarters of it was beneath Federal land. The Rand Corporation has estimated that 30%-60% of the oil shale at Green River is recoverable. That is an amount equal to the entire world's proven oil reserves!

Assuming that the 3 trillion barrel estimate is correct and that the price of oil on the world market is about $100 per barrel, the Federal non-tax revenue from royalties alone approaches $37.5 trillion dollars. In addition to the royalty payments more revenue would be generated through lease options.

A team of analysts and economists at Citigroup has estimated that energy independence can be achieved by 2020 and the United States can become a net exporter of crude oil, refined products, and natural gas. What we are talking about here is nothing less than OPEC playing second fiddle to an new petroleum exporting colossus—AMERICAN PETROLEUM EXPORT (APX). Today there are about 4300 supertankers plying the world's oceans. Only 59 of them fly the American flag. Imagine for a moment just the effect on American jobs and the American economy if we began to build our own fleet of supertankers to supply world petroleum markets for decades to come. Imagine the impact on our balance of trade.

All of the foregoing has huge implications for not just manufacturing jobs but for good paying jobs writ large. And they will be sustainable jobs going forward. Studies by Wood Mackenzie, the American Chemistry Council, the Public Policy Council of New York, the Pennsylvania State University, the Western Energy Alliance, and PricewaterhouseCoopers, to name just a few, document job growth in the millions if these recoverable resources are brought to market.

This is the promise and the potential of the American Economic Renaissance. The AER will do for America in the 21^st century what the Industrial Revolution did for the nation in the 20^th century. We're talking about something that will make efforts like the Marshall Plan after World War II and President Kennedy's proposal to send a man to the moon and return him safely to earth look microscopic by comparison.

Here's an example, one of many, that illuminates how the royalty payments could be put to work to jump start the moribund American economy and create millions of good paying and sustainable jobs. The most recent report card of the American Society of Civil Engineers gives the nation's crumbling infrastructure an overall all grade of D. More specifically, they give aviation a D, dams a D, rail a C-, schools a D, the national power grid a D+, and navigable waterways a D-. Fixing all of this the Society estimates would cost $2.2 trillion dollars. Given all the red ink in the Federal Budget and a national debt of more than $16 trillion dollars, a project of this magnitude is unthinkable. It's completely out of reach. But with access to a stream of royalty payments that is reliably estimated to be more than $30 trillion dollars such a project with all the jobs it would create is not only possible, it's a sure bet.

But an enterprise this big, this complex, this long lasting raises related questions of consequential magnitude. Chief among them are how does the nation organize such an enormous effort so that it functions well and is agile enough to changing circumstances over many years? And how does the nation wisely spend the enormity of the revenues the AER will generate for decades to come?

Not only are the answers to these question important in their own right, they also are crucially related to the dynamics of the Presidential election.

First the the question of organization. The answer begins with two things NOT to do. Don't had this job over to the oil and gas industry. If that happens, they will become vastly wealthier and little else of benefit will occur. Well, if the job shouldn't be handed off to the private sector, how about we give it to the Federal Government? Perish the thought. If the responsibility and authority for a program like this were handed off to the bureaucrats in the Puzzle Palaces that line the Potomac nothing would ever happen but committee meetings and regulation writing.

The answer to this dilemma hides in plain sight in our nation's development over the past 236 years. America has been blessed with extraordinary leaders at times of great challenge and change. For example, our first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, saw the necessity for a strong, but limited national government. To that end he established a budget, a tax system and a funded debt. President Lincoln not only successfully prosecuted the Civil War he also managed the transition of America from an agrarian society to an industrial one. Think Homestead Act, that opened the West, the Pacific Railway Acts that connected the east to the west by rail, thereby laying the basis for a truly national economy. Teddy Roosevelt was the architect who brought into being the rules that enabled businesses to thrive as well as the necessity for transparent rules and regulations designed to prevent abuses and hold businesses accountable

The organizational structure to manage the AER does not yet exist. It will of necessity have to be an amalgam of Government and the private sector where each participates and neither can run roughshod over the other.

And what about how to spend all that money the AER will generate. Again what not to do is the easy part of the answer. Don't just pay off the national debt. Don't propose to cut taxes, either individual or corporate. Don't turn it over to the Federal bureaucrats or the state bureaucrats for that matter.

No, the smarter, wiser course is to use most of that revenue to move America from the end of the industrial society fully into the emerging global economy where we must compete successfully or perish.

All of this, of course, will need to be worked out. Working it out will be messy, complicated, and intensely controversial. That's to be expected and it's OK. It's the American Way. .

CONCLUSION

If Governor Romney unleashes this strategy at Hofstra on October 16^th, follows it with speeches on the AER in southeastern Ohio, Colorado, and Pennsylvania immediately thereafter, and uses it again in the final debate, he will win this election. The speech in Pennsylvania may well put the Keystone state in play, and the relevance of all of the above to the final debate is because our failing economy, growing debt, and inevitable decline is a NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT.

By doing all of this Governor Romney will achieve a governing mandate on November 6^th. And he will have laid the groundwork for breaking the logjam on Capitol Hill that will enable him to govern effectively, regardless of Democratic control of the Senate.

This strategy will utterly surprise President Obama, throw him on the defensive, and put his Campaign in an unrecoverable position. He can't run on his record. The day he took office most Americans believed that the country was headed in the wrong direction and that reality has not changed for the better in any appreciable way during his four years in office. Moreover, he has not articulated a plan of action for his second term. Governor Romney's AER initiative will expose the fact that President Obama has no countervailing alternative to offer the American people. Once that becomes clear in the minds of Independent voters in the Swing States, the President will lose.

Governor Romney should close his next debate with the President by saying, “The American people are hurting, Mr. President. They know the nation is heading in the wrong direction for them and for their children. Millions of our citizens can't find a job. Millions more have jobs that do not challenge them or put enough bread on the table. You've had four years to fix this problem and you have failed. I know how to put America back to work. And I have just described it in a way that the American people can understand and support. On January 25^th, 2010, Mr. President, you told Diane Sawyer on ABC World News, 'I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.' I believe the American people will and should hold you to your own standard on November 6^th.”

That concludes the proposal that I sent to Governor Romney.

THE SHADOW'S PREDICTIONS:

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The GOP currently controls the House 241-191. There are three vacancies. In order to take control of the chamber the Democrats need to gain about 25 seats. It's not going to happen.

Unlike the House election of 2006, 2008, and 2010, Tuesday's election will not be a Wave Election in which one party decimates the other. The ten-year census in 2010 triggered the redrawing of congressional lines in most states. Both parties adopted the same defensive redistricting strategy. Their principal objective was to reconfigure districts wherever possible to shore up incumbents who might otherwise be vulnerable to defeat this year. Having done that both parties then attempted to invade the turf of the other. That process was particularly helpful to the Democrats in in Illinois and California, and it has advantaged the Republicans here in North Carolina.

And that brings us to the race that folks here in the mountains care most about, the 11^th district that Democrat Heath Shuler has represented since 2007. By gaining control of the state legislature in 2010 for the first time in over a century, the GOP was in a position to recast congressional district lines to their advantage. And that is exactly what they did. In so doing they put four incumbent Democrats at risk, including Heath Shuler. And that is why he chose not to seek reelection in a district that no longer includes the Democratic stronghold of Asheville.

The battle here in the 11^th pits Shuler's former Chief of Staff, Hayden Rogers, against Republican Mark Meadows. Meadows, a conservative who has brilliantly avoided being branded as a mouthpiece for the Tea Party will win Tuesday. It will not be close. Meadows wins going away.

The much more interesting question will be whether Meadows will be able to maintain his independence once he becomes a member of the Tea Party dominated Republican Caucus in the House. If he can successfully walk that tightrope, he likely will be this district's Congressman for as long as he wishes. If he can't, he won't be around long enough to get much accomplished.

When the dust settles tomorrow night the Republicans will have lost a handful of seats, but will still retain their majority in the House by a margin of 235-200.

THE SENATE

While the rise of the Tea Party in 2010 enabled the Republicans to take control of the House, its effect on the Senate has been a disaster. Prior to the 2010 election the Democrats controlled the Senate 59-41. After the Republican Wave Election in 2010 the GOP had gained 6 Senate seats and the Democrats margin of control had been reduced to 53-47. But that six seat gain obscures what really happened. If fact the GOP had an excellent opportunity to pick up four additional Senate seats in 2010 which it did not because its nominees were so weak they never had a chance to win. All of these nominees in Delaware, West Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada were Tea Party zealots who turned out to be an embarrassment to themselves, the Republican Party, and the voters in their states. Had the GOP captured those four seats the Republicans would have taken control of the Senate in 2010. Remember these four lost seats as we begin our analysis of the Senate election tomorrow.

The Democrats control the Senate 53-47 headed into tomorrow's election. 33 seats are up in this cycle—23 controlled by the Democrats and 10 controlled by the GOP. After the votes are counted, the Democrat's margin will narrow to 51-49.

And just like the Tea Party needlessly sacrificed four senate seats in 2010 they will be responsible for flushing three more seats down the toilet in this election.

In the Pine Tree state of Maine longtime moderate Republican Olympia Snowe became so disheartened with the Tea Party and the Left Wing radicals she did not seek reelection. She would have been a shoo-in for reelection had she run. That seat will turn over with election of Independent, Angus King, who will caucus with the Democrats.

In the Show-Me state of Missouri the GOP nominee, Congressman Todd Akin, squares off against Senator Claire McCaskill. Akin is a fierce Tea Party stalwart. Like Majority Leader, Harry Reid two years ago, McCaskill was considered to be the most vulnerable Democrat in this year's cycle. The seat was considered to be a certain Republican pick-up. Then Akin opened his mouth and said that “legitimate rape” rarely leads to pregnancies and forces female bodies to shut down. The GOP was forced to disown Akin, and he will lose.

In the Hoosier state of Indiana Richard Mourdock, a Tea Party activist defeated longtime moderate Senator Richard Lugar in the Republican primary election. Mourdock is opposed by Democratic Congressman, Joe Donnelly. Indiana is a Republican state and Governor Romney will win it handily. There was every good reason to expect that Mourdock would also win keeping the seat safely in the Republican column. But in a debate with Donnelly last month he stated, ”I came to realize that life is a gift of God. And I think that even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape that it is something that God intended to happen”. Mourdock loses tonight, and another Republican seat is needlessly lost.

In Connecticut Independent-Democrat Senator Joe Lieberman is retiring. The contest is between Democratic Congressman Chris Murphy and Linda McMahon, the Chief Executive of World Wrestling Entertainment. She was the Republican nominee for another open Senate seat in Connecticut two years ago and she lost badly. This time she has run a more formidable campaign, and, like two years ago, she has poured millions of dollars of her own personal wealth into the campaign. But in a Smack Down in the Nutmeg State Linda McMahon is pinned again. Murphy wins.

In an open seat in Virginia former Governor and Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Tim Kaine is opposed by former Republican Governor and Senator, George Allen. Allen was defeated in a bid to seek reelection to the Senate in 2006 when he twice unwisely referred to an Indian-American who was filming an Allen Campaign event in Breaks, Virginia as a “Macaca”. Macaca is a pejorative epithet and uttering it helped to defeat Allen's bid for reelection in 2006, destroyed his Presidential ambitions in 2008, and will contribute to his defeat tomorrow. Tim Kaine wins in the Old Dominion.

In Wisconsin Democratic Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin is opposed by former Governor Tommy Thompson in a bid to take the open seat created by the retirement of Democratic Senator Herb Kohl. Baldwin is one of the most liberal members of the House and was the first openly lesbian person elected to the Wisconsin Assembly. The race has been too close to call for months. The Shadow predicts that Thompson will win the Badger State in a squeaker.

The retirement of Democrat Kent Conrad creates another open seat battle in the Peace Garden State of North Dakota, and this one is going to be close—real close. Former state attorney general, Heidi Heitkamp is the Democrat and she is opposed by Republican Congressman Rick Berg. Mitt Romney will carry North Dakota handily. Although Heitkamp has proved to be a skilled, likable, and formidable campaigner, Berg wins this race.

In Montana first term Democratic Senator Jon Tester seeks reelection. He is opposed by Republican Congressman Denny Rehberg. Two strong and opposing political philosophies are alive and well in Montana. The base of the Treasure State's Democratic tradition is rooted in mining and labor unions. The Republican base is rooted in fierce individualism and inherent distrust of government—especially the Federal Government. Tester and Rehberg are each strong candidates and this campaign has been close from the git go. It has been bitterly negative with both sides spending huge amounts of cash on negative advertising. But when all is said and done Senator Tester will be defeated by the rancher who, when he's not voting in Congress, raises cashmere goats.

Arizona features another open seat contest brought about by the retirement of Republican Senator John Kyl. Republican Congressman Jeff Flake is opposed by former United States Surgeon General, Richard Carmona, the Democrat. Carmona is a physician, was Surgeon General in the Administration of Bush 43, was raised in Harlem, is of Puerto Rican descent, and was a member of the U.S. Army Special Forces.

Mitt Romney will carry the reliably Republican Grand Canyon State. But Carmona is a formidable candidate and will make it close. But the GOP should be able to hold this seat.

In the Silver State of Nevada Republican Dean Heller was appointed to the Senate after the forced departure of disgraced Senator John Ensign. Now Heller seeks election. He is opposed by Democratic Congresswoman Shelley Berkley whose district includes “The Strip” in Las Vegas. Berkley is strongly supported by Senate Majority leader, Harry Reid, and there is no doubt that Harry Reid will use his formidable get out the vote machine in Clark County (Las Vegas) for both President Obama and Berkley. But unlike two years ago when that machine put Reid back into the Senate, it won't get the job done for Berkley. Heller wins.

In the Bay State Senator Scott Brown, a Republican, seeks reelection. He is opposed by Democrat, Elizabeth Warren, a former Obama adviser and Harvard professor.. Brown is likable, has been hard working, and is something of a rarity. He's a moderate Republican. Warren is a left wing ideologue. On a level playing field Warren's no match for Brown. But Massachusetts is no level playing field. It's overwhelmingly Democratic and President Obama will carry it decisively. However, this race is The Shadow's upset special. Even though Warren leads in all the polls, I predict Brown will be reelected.

And there you have it. When all is said and done the Democrats will control the Senate by a margin of 51-49. Of course, you can figure out how different it would have been for the Republicans were it not for the Tea Party's penchant for self inflicted destruction. Had the Tea Party not flushed those seven seats down the toilet, the Republicans would control the Senate with a 56 vote majority.

THE PRESIDENCY

There is no doubt that Barack Obama inherited a nation in desperate straits. It was not trouble of his making. He was swept into office on a brilliantly run campaign that promised HOPE AND CHANGE. That is exactly what the American people wanted, voted for, and expected. Now with perfect hindsight, it's evident that President Obama did not deliver on his promise.

One only needs to look at the enactment of three bills that indelibly bear the signature of his first term—the Stimulus, Obamacare, and Financial Reform. Each of them is deeply flawed and each was enacted in a way that took the definition hyper partisanship to a level never previously seen in Washington. Within months of taking office HOPE AND CHANGE degenerated into MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY.

More damaging to the president is that the Stimulus did not come close to jump starting an economy in free fall, and Obamacare polarized the nation. Together they spawned the rise of the Tea Party. And Financial Reform does not address the problem of too big to fail for the Wall Street banks.

Finally and unbelievably, the president has not laid out a set of specific proposals going forward that would serve as a compelling basis for his reelection and second term in office. He appears not to have realized that the Divine Right of Kings doesn't play well in America. Whether such a stupendous blunder arises out of arrogance or incompetence doesn't really matter. What does matter is that Barack Obama's incredible luck, dating all the way back to his election to the State Legislature in Illinois, is going to run out tonight.

There are 538 electoral votes. It takes 270 to win. Unfortunately, there has never been any doubt with respect to how most states will cast their vote for President. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia are solid Blue. That gives the President 237 electoral votes. Twenty-three states are solid Red. That gives Governor Romney 191 electoral votes. There are nine battleground states with 110 electoral votes. They are: FL(29), NC(15), VA(13), NH(4), OH(18), WI(10), IA(6), CO(9), and NV(6).

That so many states are uncompetitive is a reflection of the polarizing racial and gender divide that has crippled the Federal Government. The Blues are overwhelmingly made up of single or divorced white women, individuals possessing high levels of education and income, African-Americans, and Latinos. The Reds are overwhelmingly made up of white men, married white women, evangelical Christians, and individual without a college education. In Washington their elected representatives hate one another.

Thus, almost the entire presidential campaign has been waged in the nine battleground states. Among the nine, Ohio is the most significant. Ohio has voted with the winner in every presidential election since 1944, except in 1960. No Republican has ever won the White House without carrying Ohio. That makes Ohio the 800 pound gorilla for any Republican seeking the presidency. To win tomorrow's election Governor Romney must win Ohio. And win it he will.

Governor Romney will do well enough in suburbs of Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland to slightly offset Obama's huge margins in the cores of those cities. In addition, Romney will roll up very large numbers in southeastern Ohio where most of the state's evangelical Christians reside and where coal is, and natural gas soon will be, king.

Governor Romney will also win at least five of the remaining battleground states: Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, and Colorado. The president will likely win the remaining three battleground states: Wisconsin, Iowa, and Nevada.

Governor Romney will claim the White House with 279 electoral votes. President Obama will win 259 electoral votes. The popular vote will be very close—Romney 50.4%, Obama 48.7%.

But know this, if Romney wins, America will not be out of the woods. A Tea Party controlled House and a Democratic controlled Senate is a proven recipe for catastrophe. Whether President Romney can bring a recalcitrant and rebellious Congress to heel remains to be seen. It will require a level of imagination, boldness of ideas, and guts that none of us has yet seen him demonstrate.

Now, if The Shadow is wrong and we end up with another four years of Barack Obama, the nation will have saddled itself with a man whose ability to act the role of the President is remarkable. It has been a performance worthy of an Oscar. But acting like a President versus being an effective President at a time of national crisis are not the same. Obama and his campaign assumed you wouldn't notice the difference.

WHO LOST TOMORROW'S ELECTION?

We began with the question of who won tomorrow's election. Let's end with who lost it. I think that's the really important question. If the President is reelected tomorrow, and you think that Mitt Romney lost the election, you're wrong. If Governor Romney wins tomorrow night, and you think the President lost the election, you're wrong.

In fact, it probably won't make any difference which of them wins tomorrow night. Let me just repeat that for emphasis. It probably won't make any difference whether President Obama or Governor Romney wins tomorrow night. Why? Because in either case America loses!

Now I know that's counter intuitive. I know that most of you believe strongly that it's vital that one of these two men win and the other lose. And there is no doubt in my mind or yours that the vast majority of voters believe that America will either move forward or backward depending on whether the President or Governor Romney takes the oath of office next January 20^th.

I'm here to tell you that's not the case. America's been stuck in a rut for almost two decades. At a minimum it dates from 1995 when Newt Gingrich engineered the Republican takeover of the House which ended 40 years of House Republicans wandering in the wilderness. A couple of year later the Monica Lewinsky affair hit the front pages and that emasculated President Clinton. Speaker Gingrich smelled blood, the impeachment process began, and deadlock overran Washington.

President Bush and his Republican majorities on Capitol Hill wrongly took us into war in Iraq, exploded the deficit and the debt, and never saw the coming economic implosion on the horizon.

President Obama and his Democratic majorities on the Hill promised Hope and Change and didn't deliver on the promise. Instead the adopted a take it or leave it approach on both Obamacare and the Stimulus legislation. That approach tore the country in half. And that gave rise to the Tea Party which has been on a scorched earth policy since taking over the House two years ago.

During this period America's has been adrift. We teeter on the edge of national decline. None of the major problems the nation faces is being addressed. Tomorrow's election, no matter who wins, almost certainly will not change this calculus of deadlock and drift.

It's not their fault. It's our fault. The American people are too selfish, too partisan, and too stupid. It's a deserved fate of our own making. It's an indictment of democracy and self government.

Thank you.

Please Visit:  Citizens Against Politics As Usual

Please Visit:   Mike Tower Political Opinions