Reasons Why I'm Not Moving to California, Part 97,412

This hasn't been getting nearly enough coverage...

Some call it California's cash advance.

Effective today, the amount of state income taxes withheld from California workers' paychecks will increase 10 percent.

That might sound like a tax increase, but state officials insist that's not the case.

Tax experts agree, saying this bump up in withholding taxes gives the state some wiggle room in managing California's treasury in a year that saw a titanic political battle to get a handle on the state's budget.

The increased withholding comes on top of a 0.25 percent state income tax increase and a reduction in the dependent credit, also enacted as part of the state budget.

Essentially, the accelerated withholding program does not generate additional tax revenue. Instead, it front-loads it, bringing cash in more quickly in an effort to keep the state treasury stocked with funds, which is where the "cash advance" tag comes in.

State officials have estimated that the move will generate an additional $1.7 billion in the current fiscal year.

The bottom line is that a worker's total annual income tax bill won't rise, and the amount owed at April 2010 tax time will be adjusted accordingly.

Simply put, if you owe taxes when April 15 comes along, the balance due will be less based on what was withheld from your paycheck in the last two months of the year. If you're due a refund, you can expect a little more.

Look, withholding of taxes is always a tricky thing, because a taxpayer who fails to manage the withholding allowances properly will almost certainly end up with a large refund, which is also known as a tax-free loan to Uncle Sam or the state. And unlike if you fail to pay adequate withholding, Uncle Sam won't be giving you interest.

But there's something notably awful about this -- as Megan McArdle notes, this is essentially a forced loan by taxpayers to the government so the government can balance its books a little better. This isn't normal withholding -- and it's one more reason taxpayers are revolting around the country. The government solution to pay for its own runaway spending is always to take more money out of taxpayers' pockets. The practice is the same, but the methods are getting more brazen.

Cult of Personality

I'm not really offended by this so much as creeped out...

Big Hollywood has already posted a couple disturbing videos of young school children singing/speaking praises to President Obama, but when eleven more dropped in our email box it came as quite a shock. What seemed like an aberration now appears to be a troubling pattern.

Maybe “epidemic” is a better word.

Each one of the videos below is creepier than the last because the further down you go, the younger the children — brace yourself for kindergartners – except for the last and most disturbing video, which you have to see to believe.

(hat tip: Instapundit)I'm not worried about brainwashing -- today's public schools haven't been all that great at imparting actual knowledge among our impressionable youth, so I'm not convinced they'd do a better job with propaganda. But the cult of personality that surrounds Obama (funny that even Paul Krugman once accused Dems of being cult-like) is more than a little bit silly. We don't need to be naming schools after Barack Obama just yet, and having schoolchildren singing songs (and mostly bad ones) in his honor is creepy.

And for the folks at the Marymount School... since I went to a Catholic university undergrad, I consider myself more Irish then Barack O'bama. Although I have to admit the tune is catchy.

Assigning Blame Where It Belongs

Yes, the spawn of Satan won the World Series. I blame President Obama. 8 years in office, Bush never let the friggin' Yankees win a title. Obama's in office less than ten months, and we're watching the mercenaries from New York dancing with a trophy. Just like Bill Clinton, who couldn't keep the Yankees from winning four titles during his two terms. Before that, Jimmy Carter was President when the Bronx Zoo copped two titles in the 1970's. In fact, the Yankees haven't won a title with a Republican in office since the days of Eisenhower. It's clear all sorts of bad things only happen when Dems are in the White House. Or as Sideshow Bob once noted...

"I'll be back. You can't keep the Democrats out of the White House forever. And when they get in, I'm back on the street! With all of my criminal buddies! Ba-ha-ha-ha-ha!!"

Bottom line conclusion -- if you want to prevent further Yankee titles, vote Republican. Otherwise, you're just siding with Satan and rooting for the Yankees.

Election Redux

A few thoughts regarding Election Night...

1. My old law school compadre Jay Webber is the chair of the New Jersey GOP and one of the key players on the team that got Chris Christie elected in New Jersey. As Geraghty notes, those folks deserve some kudos -- they caught a lot of flack in recent weeks as the race narrowed, but they stuck to their strategy and won an impressive victory for New Jersey.

2. Politico says that even safe Dems are feeling the heat today. That might give the lie to Speaker Pelosi's belief that last night was a win for the Dems in the House because of NY-23.

3. The media spin on NY-23 seemed to be that the GOP is kicking out moderates and going for ideologically pure candidates, and that this was bad for the GOP. It's bad to lose an election, but losing the seat is mitigated by the belief that Scozzafava wasn't too different from Owens. The seat is back up next year, and this time the GOP gets to run a primary -- which is effectively what happened between Scozzafava and Owens this time.

4. I don't know if the election is a deathblow to Obamacare. But the patient is definitely struggling, now that Senate Dems are openly speculating that the Senate version might be in a holding state into next year.

5. The Dems doth protest a little too much about the election not being a referendum on Obama. I don't think this reflects people's views on Obama, but it does reflect their views on his agenda and priorities. The President is still well-liked, but he's not able to sell refrigerators to Eskimos any more. At this point, he may not be able to convince some o them to buy gloves. The rhetoric is still there, but people have started to notice it's empty. That's not good for him or his party.

6. Most important point here is pretty simple -- in a bad economy, it's not good to be an incumbent. even Michael Bloomberg's $100 million only bought him a small margin of victory. If the recession is a double-dip or unemployment continues to lag the perceived or real recovery, 2010 will be bad for incumbents.

With That Headline, Are They Endorsing Child Abuse?

Last week, the New York Post mocked Phillies centerfielder Shane Victorino prior to Game 1 by putting him in a skirt on the cover. Now they've put Pedro Martinez in a diaper on the cover before Game 6, with a "Spank him Yanks: Daddy to whup Pedro tonight" headline.

Remember, the Phillies won Game 1 after the Post's photoshop job on Victorino. I'm betting the Phils win tonight. And if the Post does something silly again before Game Seven... please, Post editors, tempt fate.

I'm Still Booing Michael Irvin

My wife watches Dancing With The Stars, and I often end up stuck watching it. I will say that I finally enjoyed a moment on the show tonight, when Michael Irvin got booted off the show (which in no way makes up for having to hear Rod Stewart sing -- I really think the English government needs to apologize to the world for Rod Stewart. Ugh.). My wife thought it was in bad taste for me to cheer Irvin getting the boot. I don't see how -- he's still a Dallas Cowboy, which means he's still evil. If he'd gotten kicked off the show and deported to North Korea as a result, I probably would have cheered.

But in that case, I would probably feign remorse for cheering his imprisonment in a Stalinist dictatorship. Although I emphasize that I would actually be feigning said remorse.

About Those Jobs "Created or Saved"...

Well, this certainly makes me feel better about the stimulus...

How did Kentucky shoe store owner Buddy Moore save nine jobs with just $889.60 in federal stimulus money? He didn’t, and that’s turning into a big headache for him.

Moore’s store in Campbellsville, Ky., filed one of 156,614 reports from recipients of stimulus dollars designed to show how money from the $787 billion program is being spent, and how many jobs the funds have created or saved.

Moore’s slice of the stimulus came in an $889.60 order from the Army Corps of Engineers for nine pairs of work boots for a stimulus project.

Moore says he’s been supplying the Corps with boots for at least two decades. This year, because he provided safety shoes for work funded by the stimulus package, he said he got a call from the Corps telling him he had to fill out a report for Recovery.gov detailing how he’d used the $889.60, and how many jobs it had helped him to create or save. He later got another call, asking him if he’d finished the report.

“The paperwork was unreal,” said Moore, who added that he tried to figure out how to file the forms online, then gave up and asked his daughter to help.

Paula Moore-Kirby, 42 years old, had less trouble with the Web site, but couldn’t work out how to answer the question about how many jobs her father had created or saved. She couldn’t leave it blank, either, she said. After several calls to a helpline for recipients she came away with the impression that she would hear back if there was a problem with her response, and have a chance to correct it. So with 15 minutes to go before the reporting deadline, she sent in her answer: nine jobs, because her father helped nine members of the Corps to work.

“You could fill out the form in 10 minutes, but we were trying to fill out the form correctly,” she said, guessing that she spent up to eight hours on it in total.

That was a few weeks ago. The only thing the Moores heard after that was that because they’d received less than $25,000 in stimulus money, they shouldn’t have reported in the first place.

Today, three days after the reports were made public, local television stations and national newspapers including The Wall Street Journal started telephoning Moore, because his nine jobs for $889.60 in stimulus money makes him look like one of the most effective spenders in the country.

Kirby-Moore says she then got a call from her dad, asking her, ‘Paula, I thought you knew what you were doing… What did you put in that form?”

“I thought it was the right answer,” she said. “It is sad that creating nine jobs should get so much attention… If anybody’s looking for instant fame, I guess we’ve found the way.”

“The question, I would like to know is: How do you answer that? Did we create zero? Is it creating a job because they have boots and go out and work for the Corps? I would be really curious to hear how somebody does create a job. The formula is out there for anyone to create, and it’s just so difficult,” she said.

(hat tip: Megan McArdle) It probably should have set off an alarm bell somewhere when compiling the report when someone reported creating or saving 9 jobs with less than $900. But hey, maybe that's another job created -- someone to monitor government stimulus reporting to make sure it's not full of BS.

This may explain why, even with the stimulus, so many voters find the economy to be a pressing concern. But here's hoping the Dems opt to continue ignoring it.

Twitter Provides Some Useful Information

Jake Tapper tweets the following (heh-heh, tweet):

NBC's "The Biggest Loser" is at the White House tonight. This is not a joke.

Five immediate thoughts:

1. Why is it news that Joe Biden is visiting?
2. Someone is so getting fired for not checking the calendar.
3. Is this another Corzine shot at Christie's weight?
4. Wait, the Biggest Loser is still on TV?
5. I know Obama likes being on TV all the time, but this is getting ridiculous -- if he counts as obese, they really need to redo those weight tables.

Live Report From New Jersey

The Lord of Truth lives in New Jersey -- even he's trying to figure out why, but that's another post for another time. In any case, he and his lovely wife went shopping this afternoon and he overheard this hysterical conversation between two checkout girls...

Girl 1: “Hey girl did you vote today?”
Girl 2: “Nah – you?”
Girl 1: “Yeah – I voted for Corzime. I had to, that other guy…whasshisname… he don’t want women getting mammograms and shit”
Girl 2: “….wha?”
Girl 1: “That guy? He won’t let us get mammograms.”
Girl 2: “Get what?”
Girl 1: “Mammograms. Ain’t you know what a mammogram is?”
Girl 2: “What?”
Girl 1: “Mammograms! You know what that is?”
Girl 2: “Paper or plastic? Hey can you come help me bag?”

I'm amazed those girls haven't found their way into management positions yet.

The exchange brings to mind a classic Simpsons quote, from the Season Two episode where Burns ran for governor. His Election Eve dinner with the Simpsons, designed to show he was in touch with the common man, fails when Marge sabotages the meal by serving Burns a mutated fish from his power plant, which Burns can't eat. His reaction when leaving is one of the better summaries of how politicians probably think...

Burns: "This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you."

Smithers: "You are noble and poetic in defeat, sir."

You know, Jon Corzine is a bald corrupt billionaire... I wonder what Burns looks like with some more weight and a beard...

The Virginia Governor's Race

Jim Geraghty attended Creigh Deeds final campaign rally and brings up a great point regarding the his campaign in Virginia for Governor...

I know Deeds has mentioned this anecdote once or twice on the trail, but it was new to me last night, and was far and away the most gripping and compelling thing he’s said all campaign. He mentioned that when he was growing up in rural Bath County, he didn’t have much “stuff”, but that they always had enough to eat, because they lived on a farm. He said that as a teenager, he worked as a counselor at a summer camp run by his uncle, and on one of the first days, encountered a young boy bewildered when everyone sat down for lunch.

"This little boy looked me in the eye and said, 'You mean we eat more than once a day here?'" Deeds recalled. The crowd was silent.

Deeds said that the moment punctured the bubble of his bucolic existence, as he recognized that there were children who went to bed hungry, not living too far from him; Deeds said that was what motivated him to go into public life.

Now, when I looked at Deeds’ legislative career, a tireless effort to feed the hungry wasn’t what jumped out at me; mostly the candidates’ appetite for making deals and raw ambition. But let’s give Deeds the benefit of the doubt and say that yes, the hunger of a small boy was what drove him to try to make a difference in this world.

Then where was this in Deeds’ campaign? Where was that in any of his ads? Why did the Deeds campaign seem to have an obsessive-compulsive disorder about McDonnell’s thesis from 20 years ago?

Picture Creigh Deeds saying, “I first ran for office because there are people out there who are dirt poor, who are vulnerable, who have caught some bad breaks and they don’t have much power, or influence, or any clear way to improve their lives. There are a bunch of Virginians from one year to one hundred years who are too weak, too vulnerable, too easily overlooked, and not enough folks are speaking up for them. I know it’s an uphill battle, but I’m running for governor because I want to be the voice for all of those folks out there who can’t speak for themselves.” (Put aside, for a moment, Deeds’ sad flip-flop on abortion.)

Would that win Deeds this race? Maybe, maybe not, but I think he would at least be likeable; right now, Deeds is at 34 percent favorable, 42 percent unfavorable. Never mind voting for him; he can’t get Virginans to think well of him; he’s just the jerk who keeps clogging up prime time television and drive-time radio with over-the-top negative ads.

Sometime soon, I hope we get the story on how the Deeds campaign shaped its strategy, and who insisted that tying Bob McDonnell to the Spanish Inquisition was the right approach. It turned a challenging race into, most likely, the worst political disaster for Virginia Democrats in 16 years.

Beyond that, the night offered a cavalcade of unintentionally funny moments: Maybe 200 overwhelmingly white Alexandria Democrats kinda-sorta halfheartedly grooving to Black-Eyed Peas "Let's Get It Started."

That last moment should be on Youtube, dammit. But the greater point of this post is why Deeds looks like he's failed.

He did employ an attack strategy on Bob McDonnell's socially conservative views as expressed in McDonnell's postgraduate thesis, but never told the voters why they should vote for Deeds (and unlike in the primary, not being Terry McAulliffe or Brian Moran wasn't going to be enough). And his attacks on McDonnell were laughably over-the-top -- there's a radio ad that he had running where people are talking about "McDonnell's plan to take Virginia back to the Dark Ages." Was McDonnell going to force us to go back to using whale oil for lamps? Hyperbole is fine, but not if it goes so far that people think you're being absurd -- that's when they tune you out completely. "Deeds not Words" is a catchy slogan, but that's all the campaign had -- slogans with no substance.

To be fair, Deeds had to run a contested primary, while McDonnell enjoyed the united support of the state GOP. And Deeds also had to deal with the fact that Obama's popularity in Virginia is not what it is elsewhere (leading to the uncomfortable moment where Deeds said. in response to a question as to whether he was an Obama Democrat, "I'm a Creigh Deeds Democrat."). But his campaign was uniformly bad, only gaining limited traction after the Washington Post's now traditional Election Special hit piece on a Virginia Republican brought the thesis to light. The fact that his campaign talked incessantly about the thesis and little more showed them to be empty of any real reasons to vote for them.

Now, you can win an election without giving people a reason to vote for you, if your attacks on your opponent are effective, you enjoy a huge edge in party voter ID, and a third-party candidate siphons off votes (see New Jersey for a possibility). But Deeds had none of those things. Which makes his strategy even more questionable.

Voting Time

Off to vote in Virginia's elections today, which means a trip to the middle school gymnasium nearby. Jim Geraghty's got his predictions for the key races today -- I agree that things look good here in the Old Dominion. I also hope he's wrong on Chris Christie losing a close election -- I think Christie will pull it out. And he will be wrong on the Yankees in six prediction -- the Series is going seven.

Nancy's Holiday Gift to Trial Lawyers

No wonder the Democrats want to pass a healthcare bill soon. The longer it's in the pipeline, the more people can find out what little goodies are buried within. Like this one for trial lawyers...

Remember Obama’s effort to try a “test” for tort reform? (We don’t actually need a test, since it has worked to lower medical malpractice coverage and help increase access to doctors in states that have tried it.) Well, Pelosi’s bill has an anti-tort-reform measure. On pages 1431-1433 of the 1990 spellbinder, there is a financial incentive for states to try “alternative medical liability laws.” But look — you don’t get the incentive if you have a law that would “limit attorneys’ fees or impose caps on damages.”

That’s what the trial lawyers get for the millions spent in supporting the Democratic party, and that’s what tort “reform” in the Alice-in-Wonderland world of health-care legislation amounts to. States will be strong-armed into repealing existing caps in order to get the Fed’s money.

(hat tip: Bainbridge and Overlawyered) Remember this when people try to sell this bill -- 1,990 pages can hide an awful lot of political favors.

A Terrible, Horrible, No-Good Very Bad Day

I wonder if my wife would let me read this version to our daughter (Hat tip: Volokh).

Providing a Valuable National Service by Linking Nancy Pelosi to Ralph Wiggum

Powerline cites a list of the new federal boards and programs that will be developed if the House healthcare bill passes. They're up to 111 (so far). Among the new layers of bureacracy is this gem: "Independence at home demonstration program." I'm assuming the details provide some context, but the title is uniquely opaque. "Independance at home demonstration program" sounds like something that would have Ralph Wiggum as a mascot. "I can stay home by myself! Yay!"

What Annoying Song Is Stuck in My Head Today?

If I need to suffer with a song stuck in my head, why shouldn't you have to do the same? Sometimes they're good, most times they're bad... but no matter what, they make you suffer. So I like to share the suffering whenever it happens.

My daughter is now at the age where she can sing along with songs, and has certain favorites.... which means those songs get played in the car over and over again, until I become clinically insane (let's not quibble with whether that was already true). Anyway, the wife and I made the mistake of purchasing a CD of children singing Beatles songs awhile back, and my daughter loves it. I now know the words to at least a half-dozen Beatles songs far too well. Particularly this one...



If you ever need proof that the 1960's featured far too many people doing far too many drugs, just show them this video. Dear God, that was weird. And you're welcome.

I Can't Believe It Didn't Get a "G" Rating

I love this trailer for "The Shining".



(hat tip: Jonah Goldberg). Seriously, they should re-release the movie for the holidays with this trailer.

My Man Joe Lieberman

I will note this now -- while I disagree with Joe Lieberman on plenty of issues, my admiration for the guy grows daily. If he were a Republican bucking his party establishment (like, say, Jim Jeffors or Arlen Spector), the mainstream media would be tripping over themselves praising him. Deviating from Obama's party line? Not so much.

Then again, maybe Joe knows how to read polling data. Or read the WSJ editorial on the House healthcare bill that Nancy Pelosi introduced last week. The various bills reflect an urgency with doing something, rather than doing something that will work. The desire to push through nearly 2,000 pages of legislation while people aren't exactly clamoring for it and are skeptical about it is problematic. The President's efforts to marshal support for the bill has gone nowhere -- we're basically a 50/50 nation on this one, if that, and the people who are opposed are probably more passionate about it. Under the circumstances, if I were the Dems, I'd ditch the public option because it will be a third rail for Dem officeholders next year. But Pelosi and Reid don't seem to get that.

At the end of the day, I don't think anyone's going to be very enthused to actually pass health care this month, and I have a feeling the GOP will use it to clobber the Dems over the head with whatever passes in swing districts next year. But if the Dems are also dumb enough to keep pushing cap-and-trade, and follow with a VAT... well, I'd actually start thinking the GOP could get control of the House back (whether either party deserves it is another question entirely).

A Post Where I Get to Use the Word "Scozzafava"

Differing views seem to be emerging throughout the punditocracy on the House race known as "NY-23". By way of background, there was a three-way (heh-heh) race taking place in a special House election in upstate New York to replace a departing GOP Congressman who accepted a post as Secretary of the Army in the Obama Administration. In the case of special elections, there's no primary -- the party leaders select the candidate. The local GOP party establishment selected State Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava (quite frankly, one of the greatest names I've ever heard for a northeastern politician), while the Democrats nominated Bill Owens, an Air Force vet and attorney. The Conservative Party, which often cross-endorses the GOP pick, chose not to support Scozzafava, and instead nominated businessman and accountant Doug Hoffman.

The Conservative objections to Scozzafava centered around policy objections -- she is a liberal Republican who is in support of gay marriage and abortion rights on social policy, while opposing tax cuts and supporting card check on the economic side. After holding an early lead, Scozzafava's support dwindled, while Hoffman began to surge. But the three-way (heh-heh) race threatened to hand what had been a safe GOP seat to Owens.

This weekend, Scozzafava dropped out... and then endorsed the Democrat, Owens. Keep in mind, Scozzafava had received money and support from the national GOP establishment, including the NRCC, which ran ads blasting Hoffman.

The latest polls seem to indicate Hoffman now has the lead, although it's unclear what Scozzafava's endorsement does in the race. But what's really entertaining is the varying responses on both sides of the pundit class. Donna Brazile, who once ran Al Gore's Presidential campaign, tries to make the case that the GOP is on the verge of a civil war, in a column that was likely written before Scozzafava dropped out...

...National and upstate GOP leaders chose Scozzafava as their candidate after GOP Rep. John McHugh resigned to accept an appointment to serve as secretary of the Army. Scozzafava, who has received the endorsement of the National Republican Congressional Committee, the National Rifle Association and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, among others, is under attack from some inside the Republican Party because she is seen as not adhering to the strict principles of conservatism.

In other words, right-wing conservatives do not view her as ideologically pure enough to represent the GOP in Washington.

Because these two candidates are going after each other tooth and nail, Bill Owens, the Democratic candidate, has a shot of coming up the middle. If a Democrat wins this seat, the entire message on election night will not be about Obama or the two gubernatorial races in Virginia or New Jersey - it will be about the fractured and dysfunctional Republican Party.

Since the summer, Republicans have enjoyed a brief respite from being written off as simply the party of naysayers. With the nation's slow economic growth, bailout fatigue and a war-weary public, Republicans appeared to be on the verge of staging a comeback as they coalesced around an agenda of stopping Obama from achieving his single most important domestic agenda: real health insurance reform.

Now, however, the GOP appears to be on the brink of a civil war. Worried Republican leaders in Washington know that to win the majority of midterm elections, they must broaden their party's voter base - recent polls suggest that less than 25 percent of all voters are self-identified Republicans - and erase the many lingering negative impressions voters have about the GOP. But the bloodbath in the New York race indicates that the GOP will be stuck in the political wilderness for another electoral season for having forgotten one of President Ronald Reagan's golden rules: "The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally - not a 20 percent traitor."

To be sure, there will be some bright signs for the minority party on Election Night. Most political observers are counting on a GOP win in Virginia, where Attorney General Robert McDonnell has run a flawless campaign and Democratic state Sen. Creigh Deeds has not been able to articulate why he is running for governor. (It didn't help Deeds' cause among base Democratic voters that he snubbed Obama publicly.)

Meanwhile, in New Jersey, it looks like Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine, armed with a massive personal war chest, might just hold off his two opponents.

If the GOP is not able to bring all its factions under the same tent, the civil war could easily spread beyond New York and into Florida, Texas, California and beyond.

I don't have a problem with Brazile quoting Reagan -- I just wonder if I'm supposed to buy that Scozzafava agreed with conservatives 80 percent of the time. Over at the left wing dishrag, Frank Rich goes further than Brazile, who says the GOP activists "are re-enacting Stalinism in full purge mode." Matt Welch at Reason has fun with this quote...

For those of you keeping metaphorical score at home: Stalin's Great Purge (just to name his most famous one) included roughly 1,000 executions a day, over two years. The alleged Glenn Beck/Sarah Palin purge, meanwhile, has resulted...brace yourself...in a moderate Republican suspending her campaign for Congress to make way for a conservative independent. Yeah, totally the same.

Rich's column is silly for any number of reasons, particularly his claim that Hoffman's conservative bona fides are damaged by serving on the finance committee of a hospital that accepted a $500k earmark -- should Hoffman have resigned in protest, believing that Congress would have saved the money? I guess Rich's complaint is that the GOP is isn't aiming for enough ideological purity.

Glenn Reynolds may do the best job of summarizing what this is really about, in a column that also pre-dated Scozzafava's withdrawal...

The GOP establishment is worried -- rightly -- about the risk of a Perot-style insurgency in 2012. Ross Perot's 1992 candidacy tapped authentic populist dissatisfaction and anger, even as it doomed the Republicans and handed the White House to Bill Clinton. Nobody in the GOP wants to go down that road again.

On the other hand, the populist dissatisfaction and anger is out there again, and it has been for a while. Unhappy over immigration and spending, key parts of the GOP base stayed home in 2006 and 2008. They're even unhappier with Obama, but that unhappiness hasn't translated into a lot of enthusiasm for a Republican Party that many see as nearly as corrupt and elitist as the Democrats.

Though the media and the Democratic Party tried to portray the Tea Party movement as Republican-organized "astroturf," the GOP only wishes that were the case. Tea Partiers are still reachable by the GOP, but if the GOP mishandles things, a Perot-style challenge is very possible.

If Hoffman wins, or even hands the election to Democrat Bill Owens, the grass-roots activists will feel that they've sent a message, and will watch to see if the GOP establishment responds. If the GOP plays its cards right, and indicates that it's received the message that people want a hard line on spending and corruption and smaller government, that energy can be harnessed and put toward the 2010 elections. If it seems, on the other hand, that the GOP still doesn't get it, and if the response is condescending or dismissive, then, well, anything can happen.

If Scozzafava manages to eke out a victory, meanwhile, GOP leaders may be tempted to dismiss the grass-roots anger altogether. This is understandable, but they'd be better off remembering how nervous it made them, and taking steps to address those concerns, rather than dismissing them.

Likewise, if Tea Partiers get too carried away and full of themselves -- like the Nader Democrats of 2000 -- they will wind up handing the elections to people they really don't want running the country. The third-party threat is a good way to get the GOP establishment's attention, but, as they say, the value of the sword of Damocles is that it hangs, not that it falls. Like a nuclear deterrent, it's a threat that's best not employed.

Washington Republicans need to recognize that their constituencies outside the Beltway have been unhappy with them for years, and they need to change their ways to re-establish trust. Ultimately, it's not enough to say that the Democrats are worse. They have to stand for something besides a simple return to power.

For the grass roots, meanwhile, my advice is this: Remember that all politics is local. Got a local Republican officeholder that you don't like? Run against 'em in the primary. Even if you lose (and you probably, but not certainly, will) you'll get their attention.

And look at your local party apparatus. Everybody focuses on national stuff, but getting involved in your state or local party is very easy -- usually, all you have to do is show up. And even a few dozen committed people can make a difference in a congressional district. Party politics at the local level doesn't get a lot of attention, especially in between presidential elections, which means that those who do pay attention can have a lot of influence.

I don't know if Perot handed the race to Clinton -- that's a discussion for another day (I think a shitty campaign by Bush 41 also helped a lot). But otherwise, I think the analysis is spot-on. Brazile and Rich seem to think this is about some ideological test of purity being failed by longtime establishment Republicans, but they're missing what's happening. Grassroots activism is driving Hoffman forward -- the Tea Party movement and the Club for Growth effectively mobilized a ton of support for Hoffman, and those aren't groups identified with right-wing social causes. Point in fact, I'm not sure how someone qualifies to win votes from conservatives if they support abortion, gay marriage, card check, and Obama's stimulus package. Supporting one or two of these items isn't a dealbreaker (heck, I agree with her on gay marriage), but all four? If there had been a primary, Hoffman likely would have beaten Scozzafava's brains in. Scozzafava's not being chased out of the party by people who disagree with her -- she's not being selected to represent their views, because she does not do so. There's a difference. Scozzafava's best bet in an election would be to run as a candidate who would provide the best constituent service and focus on local issues, but her inability to attract votes indicates that many of the votes that she would get on such issues may be going to Owens. GOP voters who might have found these points attractive have another alternative in Hoffman, and one who agrees with them on more issues. That this runs counter to the views of party bosses is a feature to Hoffman supporters, not a bug -- they don't trust the party bosses who put forth Scozzafava as the candidate.

This isn't surprising, but the same people who champion political involvement by the masses when they're electing Barack Obama seem to be confused and upset by involvement from the masses who don't agree with them. Hoffman's candidacy isn't being driven by a revolt by ideological folks within the GOP so much as it is being driven by people who are fed up with D.C. politics, machine politics, party politics, etc. Reynolds makes the case that those people need to channel their energies into involvement at the local party level, and I think he's right. Some of the best political candidates for the GOP in the coming years will be outsiders to government.

The biggest mistake the GOP would make would be to ignore the folks who have been out protesting against Obamacare and the stimulus and now supporting Hoffman. It's not a civil war so much as it is a rebirth of genuine enthusiasm for conservative policy positions that the establishment right got comfortable quoting but never got around to enacting. That's more likely to generate future victories, if the party leadership actually listens.