Normally, a political party would look for certain characteristics when scouting out possible candidates for elected office: experience, intelligence, integrity, charisma, connections, etc.

But faced with a large fund-raising gap between itself and the Democrats, the Republican Party will settle for a candidate who has a ton of money and is willing to finance his or her own campaign.

According to the New York Times, "At this point, strategists for the National Republican Congressional Committee have enlisted wealthy candidates to run in at least a dozen competitive Congressional districts nationwide, particularly those where Democrats are finishing their first term and are thus considered most vulnerable. They say more are on the way."

The Times also notes that "The most recent figures show that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has raised $56.6 million and has $29.2 million at its disposal. By contrast, the National Republican Congressional Committee has raised $40.7 million with a cash balance of $2.5 million."

Here's the problem for the GOP: Instead of focusing on finding good candidates, the party is finding itself actively recruiting candidates who are simply wealthy. Is that going to lead to electable leaders? And if they do get elected, is that going to lead to strong leaders?

It's hard to imagine this strategy working. It may help to close the funding gap but it will lead to races featuring the Democrats' best candidates against whatever guy the GOP could find who was willing to spend big. That could lead to some interesting and lopsided debates.

I'm placing this blog post squarely at the feet of George Soros. The first reason I'm doing that is because I can. The second reason I'm doing it is because Mr. Soros will never read it. The third reason is because I have the ability to understand insurance actuary tables and I can read the writing on the wall.

Is anyone out there willing to take a guess at exactly why George Soros, Progressive Insurance (NYSE: PGR), and most of the rest of the auto insurance industry is so highly motivated to promote the green movement? Do you think it's because they want more trees available for the little birdies to sing in? Is it because someone said we're running a couple quarts low on oil? Could it be that they fear "green house gases" will soon choke us all? Nope, it's about none of those things. It all comes down to percentages, money, and control.

If the flow of political fund raising capital can be used as a gauge, then there's a strong message coming from the flow of campaign contributions from venture capitalists. Contributions by venture capitalists to Democratic candidates exceed contributions to Republicans by a nearly two to one margin. Red Herring reports, of the contributions from individuals and political action committees connected to the venture capital industry, Democrats have gathered $2.4 million compared with $1.4 million given to Republicans. That's quite a difference and it reveals a little about the current mindset of the finance industry in light of the coming elections.

National Venture Capital Association, is top contributor with $365,500 split 54% Democrat to 46% Republican. This seems to be a reasonable split. The giving picture from the number two and three contributors is much different however. The second largest VC contributor is Kleiner Perkins who piled 94% of $147,400 onto Democratic candidates. Third on the big donor list is Hummer Winblad which gave 100% of it's political contributions to the Democrats. The article from Red Herring expands on the list.

Most interesting to me is the fact that presidential candidate Barack Obama has handily out paced Hillary Clinton in total contributions from the VC camp. Top recipient, Obama has had $349,074 donated to his name while Clinton has only received $235,000 from similar sources. It's also important to note that Obama's total topped the VC's donations of $289,350 to Republican candidate Mitt Romney. Rudi Giuliani wraps up the top four with total contributions received of $178,400.

What do these funding dynamics indicate to you? Is there a fundamental shift taking place or are venture capitalists just hedging their bets? Do these patterns of political contribution reflect intent or are they simply a reaction to an overwhelming sense that something big must change? If political donations by venture capital organizations are an electoral thermometer, I must say it's getting mighty warm in here.

What if politics was like the stock market and you could buy politicians you like and sell the ones you didn't without envelopes of sequentially numbered small money orders in the same Chinese handwriting or cold cash hidden in the freezer?

For those rich enough -- they can buy a politician or two. The rest of us probably could rent a couple minutes of time with a big campaign contribution, and get lots of promises from a politician. Knowing the integrity of politicians and the value of political promises I am not sure how good of an investment politicians turn out to be.

Maybe you are one of the people smart enough to pick up a couple of bucks around the office at election time with bets on who is going to win. I have to admit I lost the last political bet I made. Good thing it was only a buck. What if there was a stock market where you could buy and sell shares in the candidates? The candidates would move up and down every day and those of us who are financial analysts could quantify the likelihood of people winning based on how bets are placed.

Now I am not into horse racing, poker or sports betting; but I do have to check up on the political bets every once in a while. With real money on the line there is a big incentive to be right. If you do not like the odds you can jump into the market and take the other side of the action. So what do the bookies think is going to happen in the coming election? Well it appears that Clinton is the favorite for the Democratic nominee with 67.8% and the Republican Rudy Giuliani leads the GOP with 35%.

Today's Democratic Party is not the Democratic Party as your grandfather knew it. If you think that the Democrats are all about working peoples' needs and how best to serve them, you may wish to think again. The days when the powerful labor unions were backed by legislation-wielding hot-dogs who were ready to step into the gap to protect the working class in wages, safety, and working conditions have faded away. In fact, I'm of the mind that the decline actually began way back with the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa and the slow ugly death of that empire once known as the American steel industry.

Fast forward to NAFTA and GATT, and you'll find two of the most damaging pieces of paperwork that the American economy has ever endured. Do I need to mention the one name most closely associated with both of those documents from the American side? I'll give you a hint, his ex is now looking to plant her feisty butt in the oval office.

Take a look, if you dare, at the link I have provided. It's an article called "Dems Sell Out on Trade" and surprisingly enough it's written from a slightly Democratic perspective. Read it, digest it, and then look at the past three decades in light of it. No, today's Democratic Party is not the Democratic Party that your grandpa supported. The new breed means business . . . in a stinkingly non-American, global sense.

Having won the election, Democrats appear to be easing their political rhetoric as Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson & Company head off to China to begin trade talks.

In prior trips to China, Democrats have been quite vocal about China's trade deficit, suggesting negative implications for the U.S. economy. However, since winning the November election, Democrats seem to be more tight-lipped.

It appears the trip will focus more on increasing China's consumption than drastic currency changes or threats of retaliatory trade sanctions.

Power brings responsibility. Messing up the relationship between the U.S. and China could lead to ramifications that are impossible to quantify. It appears the Democrats are going to stay away from fighting this battle for now.

The mid-term elections on Nov. 7 are now less than a week away. Polls indicate that Democrats are coming on strong. In fact, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released today found that 52% of voters hope Democrats will control Congress vs. 37% who root for Republicans.

Looks like we may be in for a bout of governmental gridlock -- when opposing parties control the executive and legislative branches. Traditionally, investors cheer at this prospect (indeed, that may be one reason the market has fared so well in the past month). The theory is that when there is gridlock, the Federal government isn't able to get that much done and investors don't have to worry about pesky issues like healthcare reform, tax increases or major policy shifts of any kind.

That's the theory anyway. But it doesn't quite pass the smell test, if you ask me. Is it really the best thing for our country, economy and stock market at this point in time to have an ineffectual Federal branch? I don't think so...

Friday, a Starbucks (SBUX) in Newport, Kentucky apologized to a group of local Democrats for kicking them out last Wednesday night. Seems the fairly large group (about fifteen or twenty members), which included county chair, Kathy Groob, had met at that locale last month without incident and expected everything to be hunky-dory again this time. But store employees told the Dems that a district manager had said political meetings or discussion weren't allowed in the store. This really isn't the case, and company officials have now apologized to the group and told them they are, in fact, welcome. Groob sounded less than fully satisfied with the outcome. Having said she found being bounced "humiliating" she also said: "I just hope they deal with the employees who overstepped their bounds."

Hmm. Very possible the kids who make the drinks and wipe off the tables did misenterpret some too-vague or too-broadly written corporate guideline, and maybe got an education in the ideals of free speech and free assembly in the bargain, but that is all that is really called for. Starbucks is in that quasi-public arena, like supermarket parking lots, which are private space, but still seen by many as community gathering points.