There are more questions than answers after a gas line was cut outside the home of Congressman Tom Perriello’s brother.

According to the FBI, it is being investigated as a possible threat to the Congressman after he voted in favor of healthcare reform.

Two members of a local tea party group posted the home’s address online, mistakenly believing it belonged to Congressman Perriello.

Authorities say the gas line to the home’s propane tank was slashed Tuesday night, although investigators don’t think there was an immediate threat to his brother’s family.

This is why the tea party movement is bad for America. Very Bad.

There is no leadership; they answer to no one. There is no real platform; the government is just bad. While the group’s intentions are noble, because of the lack of leadership and clear platform, they are more prone to violence than organized groups.

Republican leaders should condemn the violence immediately. I do. America is great because in March of 1801, we became the first country in the world to conduct a peaceful transfer of power from a controlling party to an opposition party. A peaceful political process is one of the hallmarks of our system.

The Tea Party movement is fun to watch. It’s good to see so many people involved and interested. But the group needs leadership – and that leadership is inside the Republican party. It needs a platform – and not just government is bad. What it definitely does not need is more violence.

There was an interesting comment today from Governor Bob McDonnell on his monthly WTOP Q&A about a potential VP spot in 2012. He, of course, dodged the question the best he could but he didn’t rule it out.

From there, I started thinking about the what if, because that’s what I do and though of an article I read a few weeks ago about Romney skipping the south.

But if the populist conservatives are a tough crowd for Romney, they’re nothing compared with the Christian conservatives. After courting them doggedly without success throughout the 2008 cycle, it appears that, in 2012, Romney is going to try to win without them. That, in effect, means skipping the South.

You can hardly blame him. Of the 28 caucuses and primaries Romney competed in two years ago, he finished worse than second in only six — which also happened to be six of the seven Southern states in which he ran. (He managed to finish second in Florida, a less culturally Southern state that he had hoped to win.)

It hardly seems possible to win the GOP nomination without the South, which holds tremendous weight in the process. Forty percent of the pledged delegates to the 2012 Republican convention will come from 13 Southern states (the 11 seceding “Dixie” states, plus Kentucky and Oklahoma).

“I just can’t fathom the South not playing a role in picking the GOP nominee,” says LaRaja, adding that, if Romney were to win without the South, “It would be a phenomenal strategic success story.”

As a disclaimer, I don’t think he would do that. I think, honestly, Palin would jump on board campaigning for him even if she did run against him. That’s neither here nor there though.

My point is  - if you put Bob McDonnell on the ticket with Mitt Romney, the south isn’t in jeopardy anymore. McDonnell is a solid family conservative and would surely brush up Romney’s image south of the Mason-Dixon if he were the nominee.

McDonnell ran a spotless campaign last fall and is very popular in Virginia. He’s facing record deficits and has promised to get through them without raising taxes. He’s a family man without any baggage as of now. He has a record as Attorney General and hopefully in three year’s time, he’ll have a solid record as Governor.

Romney endorsed and campaigned for McDonnell last fall. I can only imagine the two being friendly on a personal level. They’re both young and energetic and have executive experience. As I keep going, I can’t think of one bad reason for them not to be on a ticket together.

It’s really early – like we’re still years away early, but this is still fun to think about.

Glen Johnson at the Washington Post certainly thinks Mitt is setting the stage. But he’s not unique in that regard. Everyone who is anyone who has a finger on the American political pulse probably knows Romney is ready to run again.

I say, I’m all in. And it all starts with a book tour next month.

While former Alaska governor Sarah Palin sparks more passion among many Republicans and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee conveys more folksy charm, Romney is waging the most deliberate and methodical campaign of any GOP presidential contender in at least two decades for the nomination in 2012.

After spending the first year of Barack Obama’s presidency out of the public eye, Romney will launch a 19-state, three-month tour next week to promote his new book, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness. Included are speeches and appearances in the states that hold early contests in 2012, including Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

The book’s subtitle might as well be The Case for Mitt Romney.

There are a number of reasons why Mitt Romney is the early favorite. He obviously was McCain’s best challenger in the 2008 primaries and he has put in his time, campaigning for McCain and working hard for other candidates.

Additionally, his economic background make him a solid choice when it comes to policy. He could counter President Obama in that field, if President Obama’s Keynesian style approach continues to falter.

On the note of countering President Obama – Mitt Romney has a J.D./MBA from Harvard Law and Business. President Obama has a JD from Harvard Law. It would be nice to see these guys in a real, scholarly discussion about substance and policy. Like the nitty gritty details and theories and all that jazz. I’m dreaming though.

We’ll see what Romney does over the next year to get ready, but no one should be surprised when he says he is in the race.

On the surface, it looks good. Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball has the GOP picking up seven Senate seats, 27 House seats and four Governorships. Unfortunately, however, that would only put a dent – albeit a considerably large one – in the Democratic Majority.

The Washington Times ran a story today indicating though the GOP may be in a little better shape than expected.

The long-shot bid by Republicans to retake control of the Senate is suddenly in play, as the prospect of high-profile Republican candidates entering the fray has pushed the GOP even or ahead in polling for 10 races.

The potential candidacies of former Republican Govs. George E. Pataki in New York and Tommy G. Thompson in Wisconsin are improving the polling fortunes of the party as it pursues seats long in the hands of Democrats, while the anti-government “tea party” movement has provided momentum to Republican challengers in states such as Florida, Arkansas and Pennsylvania.

“If the election were held today, the Republicans could come close to winning back the Senate, if not actually win it,” said pollster John Zogby.

Optimistic assessment, no doubt, but there’s no reason not to be optimistic. President Obama and Congress have failed to deliver on many of the promises made coming in to office. Partly because the American people have said no and partly because Republicans have played good politics.

There’s more at stake than just numbers in the House and Senate. The Democratic Majority Leader, Harry Reid, is very much in danger of losing re-election in Nevada. For Democrats, that may be good news more so than bad because Reid has a history of fumbling on important legislation  - i.e. health care reform.

More importantly though – what’s at stake is momentum going into 2012. There are another 33 Senate seats up for grabs in 2012 and another round of House elections. If the GOP makes considerable gains, which it will, we’re likely to see a flurry of Democratic retirements going in to 2012. That’s not even taking into account what impact this may have on the 2012 White House race.

The end game is this: Republicans are going to make waves in November that likely won’t come to shore until 2012. Fortunately, politics isn’t always about the short term.

In his remarks to the American people, which by the way came three days after the attempted terrorist attack and in the middle of the afternoon on a Monday which most Americans were working, President Obama condemned the attacks and called it a “serious reminder of the dangers we face.”

He failed to address, however, the real problem: radical, religious extremism, specifically, radical, Islamic extremism.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was a radical, Islamic extremist and that extremism alone remains the greatest to the United States of America. President Obama, and others, have failed to address that point.

Political correctness is causing problems, especially when it comes to airport screening. Mark Steyn accurately addressed this by saying “you can congratulate yourself on how impeccably multi-cultural and non-discriminatory you are, but people are going to die because of it. Fourteen people died at Fort Hood because of political correctness.”

More people could have died on NWA Flight 253 and more people could die in the future because we’re to afraid to admit that radical Muslims are the ones trying to blow up our buildings and airplanes.

It’s difficult to say this without coming across as discriminatory, but that’s the honest truth of it.

There’s been a lot of talk about Sarah Palin in recent weeks. Her book tour as thrust her back in the national spotlight a little over a year after her defeated bid for the White House with John McCain.

Her book, Going Rogue, sits loftily on top of the New York Times Bestseller List. She sold 700,000 copies in the first week and that is undoubtedly only the beginning. People have waited in lines for hours, in mid and late November, mind you, to meet the former Governor of Alaska.

The Associated Press reported last week Palin sold 700,000 copies of her memoir in its first week, a number that far surpasses most political books.  But it falls short of the more than 900,000 copies sold of Bill Clinton’s 2004 memoir “My Life” during its debut week.

As a conservative, I was supportive of her candidacy for the Vice President and thought John McCain made an excellent decision when he picked Palin to be his running mate. Had he not, the landslide victory for Barack Obama might have been an even bigger landslide.

No one can say for sure what Sarah plans to do over the next four years, but it appears she is in the early stages of mounting a campaign for President.

There is obviously no litmus test for who is qualified to be President. No one, I think, is truly qualified to do the job. Sarah Palin is just as capable of making decisions that affect the country and the world as anyone else. I say this because I believe no one is capable or qualified to make the decisions. Rather, all we can do is send up the best person we have and hope they don’t screw it up.

With that said, Sarah Palin isn’t the best person we have.

I love Sarah Palin. She excites people, she motivates people and she is an unapologetic conservative. But she is not a viable candidate. She is not the right kind of person to be President. Sarah Palin is better suited for an AM talk radio show rather than the situation room.

I firmly believe America needs a President much like the one we have now. Not that I agree with his politics or philosophy, but Barack Obama is a smart and capable man. A smart man who has excelled at every stage in his life. The people around him have attested to his ability and desire to work on policy rather than politics, and we all know he gives a good speech. In short, we have the right type of man as President now, just not the right one.

Sarah Palin isn’t the type of person I want to be President. She’s not a thinker, not a decider. Yes, she’s inspirational and yes she’s exciting, much like President Obama, but she isn’t necessarily intellectual. She isn’t a visionary or leader like Reagan.

I don’t oppose a Sarah Palin Presidency for who she is, but rather for who she is not.

Symbolically, it is somewhat significant. Historically, it might not matter at all. Addressing the latter first, it should be duly noted that although President Obama is the fourth fastest President to fall below 50 percent, every President but John Kennedy since Harry Truman has done so.

Although the current decline below 50% has symbolic significance, most of the recent decline in support for Obama occurred in July and August. He began July at 60% approval. The ongoing, contentious debate over national healthcare reform has likely served as a drag on his public support, as have continuing economic problems. Americans are also concerned about the Obama administration’s reliance on government spending to solve the nation’s problems and the growing federal budget deficit. Since September, Obama’s approval rating had been holding in the low 50s and, although it has reached 50% numerous times, it had never dropped below 50% until now.

Of the post-World War II presidents, Obama now is the fourth fastest to drop below the majority approval level, doing so in his 10th month on the job. Gerald Ford dropped below 50% approval during his third month in office, and Bill Clinton did so in his fourth month. Ronald Reagan, like Obama, also dropped below 50% in his 10th month in office, though Reagan’s drop occurred a few days sooner in that month (Nov. 13-16, 1981) than did Obama’s (Nov. 17-19, 2009).

Of all the Presidents who dropped below 50 percent, Truman, Richard Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush were all re-elected. Only Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush were not.

Which way will things go for President Obama? The answer probably depends on health care and Afghanistan.

If Congress is able to work through health care reform, with or without a public option, the President may be able to claim victory and use this as a spring board in the 2010 mid-term elections and then in 2012. Also, if his Afghanistan decision is well received with the public, his numbers could rebound.

These are only two of the issues President Obama will have to address and it is still early in his term. But, the President’s opportunity to get his agenda passed is slowly waning. Next spring will be his last opportunity with this Congress. After elections in 2010, he’ll have the early part of 2011, but after that campaigning will begin again for 2012.

In sum, the trend for President Obama probably means little, if anything at all. Nonetheless, it has to be troubling for a President who was so popular just 10 months ago to have fallen this far.