The prospective scenario for 2012 bears striking similarities to the 1964 presidential race.  The nagging question is whether the same force that benefited enormously from the result of the election contested almost a half century ago stands ready to benefit again.

While Sarah Palin is at the moment the key player in what could be a shifty move on behalf of the New World Order in superficially ordaining one result while achieving another, Michele Bachmann could be a key player as well.  Bachmann's latest comment made Sunday at a mega church was that God had personally called on her to run against Barack Obama in 2012.

In 1964 the John Birch Society flexed much political muscle within the potent rightist ranks of the Republican Party.  Today it is the Tea Party displaying clout within a Republican Party that in 2010 gained control of the House of Representatives.  Standing on the top tier of Tea Party  popularity  among current notable Republicans are Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.

In 1964 the Vietnam War was gathering momentum.  A debate was  occurring between President Lyndon Johnson and his conservative Republican rival Senator Barry Goldwater that, in retrospect, resembled the legendary account of Tweedledum and Tweedledee agreeing to do battle.

  There seems to be a constant series of examples in history that reflect what we are living through this week: from Psistratus in Athens to Caesar in Rome to the Duke of Lancaster in 15th-century England to Napoleon to Lenin and Hitler and now to Karl Rove, a multitude of fellows have harnessed populist outrage to their own carriage in order to seize power.  That outrage, changing the metaphor, flows into the furious stream into which Boehner and McConnell and Palin launched their boats last night.

 
Glenn Beck and Karl Rove and Swift-Boat financier Bob Perry who is sending hundreds of thousands to Susana Martinez, are not just trying to prevent New Mexico from, for example, participating in the new health care exchange that will bring competition for the first time into health insurance coverage. Their goal is not nearly so limited.  These men, Beck and Rove, and women like presidential contender Sarah Palin, and senate contender Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, are not about now. They are explicitly--they say so outloud--about reversing all the gains of the 1930s New Deal and even before. They want to forget the passion and suffering that brought about a century of liberal reform.

Is Glenn Beck trying to play the race card for the benefit of his followers while being coy?

Is it mere coincidence that Beck selected the Lincoln Memorial, the venue Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. chose for his 1963 "I have a dream" speech?  The date of August 28 also happens to fall on the forty-seventh anniversary of that historic speech.

Are these both coincidences, as Beck insists, or an insidious way to play to the more radical elements of the right wing fringes?  Anticipating possible trouble, Beck has requested that no signs be brought to his rally.

We recall what happened at the huge Tea Party tax protest rally in Washington.  Congressman John Lewis, a former aide to Martin Luther King, remarked that the reception he and another African American congressman received while seeking to enter the Capitol Building was reminiscent of the South in the sixties, when racists sought to snuff out civil rights efforts by Dr. King.

When Mitt Romney sought to help embattled senators in Utah and Arizona the issue went well beyond those preferences.

What was at stake and continues to be the major issue that Romney confronts as a Republican presidential aspirant in a party where a major ideological confrontation is in vigorous progress is the direction of the party.

The contrasting force to former Massachusetts Governor Romney is former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.  This confrontation, as in so many others, finds at least quasi-historical precedents.

A tenacious battle for ideological control of the Republican Party occurred in 1964.  This was a period when a prominent Eastern wing existed.  It was headed by New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, who waged a no-holds-barred battle for the Republican presidential nomination with Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater.

Bradford pear trees are budding out.  Rhododendron are giving big promises.  It's hard to concentrate on little tasks at  hand.  I want to know.  What shoe is going to drop in the world of politics next?

There is too much undercurrent in the Eworld.  That frolicking of Palin in Nevada is curious.  I try to keep my mind on sensible questions of which nation is mad at which.  And then comes a torrent of words over civility in US politics.   How does a simple soul like me sort out what has happened to a country whose history amounts to reinventing itself?  

Take voting for example.  Originally, without property those who were not full citizens--women and slaves being among them--were given the brushoff.  

Voting was a privilege and therefore a duty, it seemed.  By force of amendments to the constitution two large groups, plus adolescents from the age of 18 to 21, were included as full-class citizens.  However, be aware if one went afoul of the law all that might change.  And residency was expected to be decently permanent.  

Sarah Palin is the same type of dream come true for media spin control operatives as was Ronald Reagan.

As a trained actor Ronald Reagan was accustomed to doing as directors told him.  He was easily manageable for the Kitchen Cabinet of millionaires that launched him into politics in sixties' California for his first run for governor along with his political strategy guiding hand, seasoned professional Stuart Spencer.

Spencer in concert with other handlers Reagan obtained when moving from state to national politics in a successful run for the presidency, resulting in two terms served, sought to turn a potential negative into a positive.  

When skepticism was voiced over Reagan's experience deficiencies in the political realm Spencer's spin control campaign was to turn him into a  "citizen politician" able to rise above partisan political considerations.

The latest running debate between Al Gore and Sarah Palin reveals once more the absurdity behind today's Republican Party, which looms increasingly as a far right pressure group rather than a viable political entity.

The Republicans indicated the direction where they were heading when Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele dared to speak of right wing talk show host Rush Limbaugh as an "entertainer," which was construed to mean that he was undermining his stature as a serious political analyst.

A furious Limbaugh demanded an apology.  The blustery talk show host had declared himself to be the titular head of the Republican Party.  Generally that title is conferred on the party's last presidential nominee, in this case Senator John McCain of Arizona.

It was soon learned how much clout Limbaugh wields on the Republican Party as a penitent Steele issued an apology.  This prompted Limbaugh to reiterate his claim as titular party head.  

With President Barack Obama having been a resident of Illinois along with representing it as a state legislator and later U.S. Senator, as well as being an African American, it is understandable that he would feel a deep and abiding identification to Abraham Lincoln.

While the sentiment expressed by Lincoln in working with his rivals and seeking bipartisan support was laudable, Obama's historical parallel is much closer to that of popular twentieth century President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a member of Obama's own party.

While Lincoln was the nation's chief executive during America's bloodiest, most costly human conflict, the Civil War, it was Roosevelt who assumed power when America was caught in the biting grip of the Great Depression and a horrific economic reality when one in every four Americans was unemployed.

Like Roosevelt, Obama possesses superior communicative talents.  Roosevelt was America's first president to master the national medium of radio through indulging in a folksy manner and being considered the nation's good neighbor as well as leader when he was invited into its homes during his informative pep talks to the nation through his historic fireside chats.

As someone born and raised in Southern California I was disgusted over how voters in my area of the state had nurtured the rise of native son Richard Nixon to political power as he used smear tactics questioning the patriotism of congressional and senatorial opponents Jerry Voorhis and Helen Gahaghan Douglas respectively.

Operating in an age where television was relatively new and had not reached the point of political advertising dominance it now holds, Nixon's operatives used phone calls along with the candidate's slimy proclamations defining who was patriotic, namely himself, and who was not, his opponents.

Nixon maintained a close working relationship with Joe McCarthy up until the time when the Wisconsin demagogue got into trouble, at which time he abandoned him, typical of "Tricky Dick's" swivel-hipped action of opportunism during moments of potential crisis.  After all, at the top of the parade for shutting off McCarthy's water was then Vice President Nixon's boss, President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Chambliss on Tuesday could be said to have been elected rather than re-elected since that 2002 result remains questionable, as does the result of the Georgia's gubernatorial election.  

It would be amusing but not for the tragedies involved and cumulative suffering of Americans who have been victimized by eight years of Bush-Cheney policies, but here they are, seeking now to squeeze off the hook by blaming those they ardently supported who followed policies that their ardent right wing preachers blessed and to which they vigorously assented.

The new interview of the moment Republican, Governor Sarah Palin, loudly lamented this week that last week's election victory by Barack Obama and extended majorities of Democrats in the Senate and House occurred through no fault of theirs.  It was that man Bush and his cohorts that she and John McCain were eagerly running away from who was at fault.

The reason why Bush was singled out after the election is that the preposterous tactic of seeking to blame Democrats for the meltdown and overall economic calamity the nation currently confronts.  Many of us have seen that patented right wing Republican "fact sheet" that has been distributed all over the internet.

That "fact sheet" lists all the economic tragedies that occurred in the past two years and concludes with, "What will it be like if the Democrats can continue to control the House and Senate while adding the presidency?" or words to that effect.

During an informative MSNBC political talk show Thursday the subject of Joe Lieberman was discussed.  The political journalist being interviewed delivered a cautionary note to Senate Democrats regarding Lieberman that dessert is better digested and enjoyed when cold.

The point being made was that efforts to impose party discipline on Lieberman for his recent activities on behalf of his close friend and Senate colleague John McCain could produce negative results for Democrats.  The issue deemed as potentially thorny related to evicting the Connecticut senator from the Democratic Caucus.

As I sat watching with interest, the reverse of that same question surfaced in my mind, to wit, "How can the Democratic Caucus, considering all that has happened with Joe Lieberman from the period of the Republican National Convention to the recently concluded presidential election, allow him to remain within their operating framework?"

Consider the following.  Lieberman, who can sound very soothing in the midst of nefarious activities, was said to have assured his Democratic senatorial colleagues that he would be speaking at the Republican Convention in a purely supportive manner relating to a close friend, Senator McCain.  

The honest answer to that disturbing question is an emphatic "No!"

We were told in a State of the Union Address by presenting as a proven fact that the U.S. had accurate knowledge that Saddam Hussein possessed "weapons of mass destruction" and was developing "nuclear power" which would soon be capable of threatening us.  

This sent fear surging through that fateful congressional gathering before the State of the Union Address.

Congressional members jumped up, giving Bush a rare standing ovation.  As Bush smilingly left the impressive chambers, the congressional members patted Bush on the back and hugged him, all so grateful that this farsighted president had the vision to save the U.S.A. from a catastrophic nuclear disaster.  

What a team to parade around with, the brewery distribution heiress and the Bush voting clone.

Just another soccer mom and your average Joe, along with the ideal couple (a man who divorced his wife after she was disabled in an accident, and the blonde brewery heiress to a $100 million fortune).

Just the type of average people that the average American can relate to naturally.

The average soccer mom-governor, with five kids who enjoys moose hunting, kill and cook expeditions.  All this between loyally appointing one's friends to vital Alaskan government positions.  After all, what are friends for?