As unemployment remains high and fears of a double-dip recession abound, the economy’s growth slowed to 2.4%, according to the Wall Street Journal.

It is widely believed that Republican gains in Congress will increase based largely on a decrease in the growth as voters look to blame incumbents for the poor economy.

The downturn also puts popular GOP issues such as spending, tax cuts, and immigration in the spotlight, all conservative bellwethers and all debates that Democrats would rather avoid in the current political climate.

This was White House press secretary Robert Gibbs less than three weeks ago:

“I think there’s no doubt there are enough seats in play that could cause Republicans to gain control. There’s no doubt about that.”

Here is what Gibbs said today:

Spokesman Robert Gibbs tells ABC’s “Good Morning America” that Democrats are running better campaigns than Republicans and he thinks his party will be successful when voters make their choices in November.

While some of this is Gibbs trying to appease Democrats upset by his earlier pessimism, it may also be a sign an administration known for tight message control is getting rattled.

Between recent polls showing President Obama’s approval ratings diving to new lows, the kerfuffle over the firing/attempted rehiring of USDA employee Shirley Sherrod, and a bleak outlook in the mid-term elections, conflicting opinions on how to stop the bleeding must be running rampant throughout the administration.

Getting attacked from all sides can’t make the situation any easier. Republicans are extremely excited to stop Obama’s legislative agenda in its tracks. Independents are wary and moving to the right in droves. Even Democrats seem lukewarm to the president on a variety of issues.

This puts the administration in quite a pickle. Do nothing and keep the not-so-rosy status quo. Tack right and lose the base. Tack left and send more Independent’s to the right. Staying on message is always difficult. Speaking to everyone while trying to upset no one makes it virtually impossible.

The GOP has been very bullish on their chances of re-taking the House of Representatives this November. Democrat Charles Rangel may have just given them a boost.

As reported in the Wall Street Journal, a House ethics panel has charged Rangel with thirteen counts of breaking House rules. Disciplinary hearings have begun and the possibility of a a public trial is looming.

Obviously a ranking member being raked over the coals for ethics violations is not something the Democrats are looking forward to in a year predicted to drastically change their electoral landscape. Talks of a plea deal to prevent such a spectacle have been floated and retracted several times over the week.

So why the hold up on a quick and tidy resolution to take the matter off the front page? Some believe the problem may be Rangel himself. As left-wing blogger David Kurtz opined, “You get the strong sense that the leadership, the ethics committee and his own lawyers all know what’s best for Charlie –Charlie himself is only one who doesn’t know and probably has been cocooned for so long that he can’t know what the smart move is.”

It remains to be seen how this saga will play out, but already nervous Democrats are rightly anxious. Even if Rangel were to fall on his own sword, Republicans will likely continue to make hay over the issue in the coming months.

Lindsey Graham, Republican Senator from South Carolina, may turn out to the doppelganger on the right to Joe Lieberman on the left. Graham has long been a fan of immigration reform, climate change legislation, and has recently advocated the appointment of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.

On the other hand, Graham has been a solid supporter of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is pro-life, pro-death penalty, pro-gun, and anti-tax. Even as rumors abound regarding Graham’s sexuality, he has been opposed to virtually all gay-right’s legislation.

More recently Graham has came out for repeal of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to those born on American soil. This may be an attempt by Graham to field off primary challenges from the right, or it may be an true change-of-heart moment.

Graham is not up for election again until 2014. Should the Democrats retain the Senate in November, in what is likely to be with a slim majority at best, they may turn to Graham for swing votes. If the GOP takes the Senate, however, Graham’s power over legislation will be greatly diminished unless he continues to tack right.

Everyone is discussing illegal immigration today. While this is generally seen as a “conservative” issue, even liberal groups have a dog in this fight.

There are myriad arguments on this issue. Terms such as amnesty, deportation, jobs Americans don’t want, wage depression, and others are in the current lexicon.

It would seem that organized labor and conservatives should hold common ground here. Cheap labor brings down overall wages hurting both the working guy and union membership.

Many ideas have been floated, including Arizona’s SB 1070, which is now floating around in the judiciary, path to citizenship (aka amnesty). and cracking down on employers who hire illegals.

Amnesty is generally considered a non-starter without a border seal. Hitting employers is seen as a detriment to the economy during a recession.

With immigration reform at a standstill in Congress, it is no wonder that states have decided to take matters on themselves. The issue isn’t going away, regardless of those who wish for it so based on electoral math.

Something needs to be done lest the wound fester much longer.

Who is responsible for Vietnam? JFK? LBJ? Nixon? None of the above?

Without equating the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to Vietnam, this is a question that should be asked when a president takes on a war, or in this case two wars, started by his predecessor.

Things seem to be looking up in Iraq yet not so much in Afghanistan. President Obama campaigned on opposing the former and extending the latter while President Bush, at last call, seemed to support staying the course in both.

It should be reasonable to ask how history will determine the outcomes of these wars. If we “win” both, does the person who started them get the credit or the person who finished them? The same could be asked if we “lose” both wars.

History generally applauds or condemns depending on the end result rather than the beginning. You certainly do not hear people blaming Vietnam on Kennedy, yet both Johnson and Nixon, who both waffled between escalating and de-escalation bear the brunt of blame.

No matter how this all turns out, it will be interesting to see how the history books will define the decade. Even more interesting will be to see how wars are fought based not only on the merits of the war, but by politicians looking at their legacy.

Everyone who follows politics has heard the term “filibuster.” Most people think of a lone Senator standing for hours reading cookbooks in order to make a stand against hasty legislation. But that never happens anymore.

Instead, in its current form, the filibuster is a move used by the minority to prevent majority legislation from coming to the floor unless 60 votes are assured.

When the Republican controlled Congress threatened to abolish the filibuster, a move called the “nuclear option,” Democrats cried foul, citing history and tradition. But now, when a super-majority of Democrats run the Senate, filibuster “reform” is suddenly vital to the republic.

This then begs the question: should 41 Senators be able to block the will of the majority? Democrats claim that this would be fine as long as that power isn’t abused. With the possibility of a Republican Senate takeover, however, the Democrats may need the filibuster in order to block repeal of certain bills passed by the current Congress, namely Health Care and Finance Reform.

One idea that has been floated suggests that the filibuster be phased out over a number of years so that no current Congress knows which party would benefit in the future.

What remains to be seen is whether enough support exists to change a rule that has been in place since the 1800s. It is also fair to ask whether the Senate would be better served by passing legislation that could be easily repealed by the next session of Congress.

Before any change is made, a consensus must be formed on whether it is better to easily pass/repeal legislation or to easily kill controversial legislation before it gets out of the gate.