The View from Right Field

Election 2010: National – and What the Republicans Do Now

A lot of Republicans won on Tuesday.  They won local and statewide races all over the country.  Republicans were elected to state legislatures, governorships, and other statewide offices in large numbers.  And the Republicans gained more than 60 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, along with six in the Senate. 

The gain in the House is astounding.  It was just four years ago that the GOP was kicked out of the House after twelve years in control.  The Republicans lost even more seats in 2008.  Republicans didn’t lose those seats just because people didn’t like the job President Bush was doing.  They also lost seats because people didn’t like the job Republicans in Congress were doing.  They went in as conservatives and came out as big-spending, big-government, Washington politicians.  Maybe they wanted the federal government to do different things than the Democrats wanted, but they still wanted Washington to do them, and they spent a lot of money in the process.

John Boehner, Republican minority leader in the current House and presumptive Speaker in the next House was right when he said, on election night, “this is not a time for celebration”, but he missed the point, to some extent, when he continued: “[N]ot when one in 10 of our fellow citizens are out of work; not when we have buried our children under a mountain of debt … not when our Congress is held in such low esteem.”

Marco Rubio, Senator-elect from Florida, got it right:

“We make a great mistake if we believe that tonight these results are somehow an embrace of the Republican Party. What they are is a second chance, a second chance for Republicans to be what they said they were going to be not so long ago.”

This fits with what I said back in May (not that it was all that hard to figure out):

“People are not switching to the Republicans because of what we have done – or even what we have proposed. They are turning against the Democrats because of what they have done – and the Republicans are the best way to vote against the Democrats.

In other words, Republicans, especially the Republicans in Congress, need to understand that if the Republicans do well in November, the victories are not a mandate. They are a chance. We are getting another chance, and we need to not blow it.”

So what do Republicans do now?  First, avoid triumphalism.  I think that most of them are doing this.  (Here.)

Second, realize that Republicans are getting this second chance for two reasons.  One:  President Obama’s and the Democrats’ deficits and their expansion of the federal government.  It could be that some (much?) of what President Obama and the Democrats have done was a logical extension of what President Bush was doing, but they went further, and they went, especially on the spending, enthusiastically.  At the end of President Bush’s second term there were big deficits because of the economy, but President Obama’s plans would continue the deficits even after the economy recovered because he wanted to spend more money for new things and new programs. 

Two: These deficits and this expansion of government resulted in the other thing that helped elect so many new Republicans to Congress:  The Tea Party.  Tea Party supporters were reacting to some of what President Bush started, in terms of the economy and financial system, but they were also reacting to things like President Obama’s health care plan and cap-and-trade, things that had nothing to do with President Bush.

So what should Republicans do now?  Some people want them to just oppose, while others want things done.  It is going to be tough to satisfy both the more enthusiastic Tea Partiers, who want government stopped and cut back, and independents, who want something done, especially with respect to getting the economy going again.*  

Also, Republicans only control the House.   Ultimately, what the Republicans can accomplish will depend on how President Obama reacts to all of this (see below) and on the Senate, neither of which they control. 

It seems to me the Republicans need a two-part approach.  While they need to be ready to work with President Obama and Congressional Democrats to get the economy moving, they also need to remain true to the principles of those who elected them.  They can compromise on details as long as the general direction is right.  They can go back one step as long as it is clear they are moving forward two steps. 

But if President Obama’s idea of compromise is to do what he wants, but just a little slower, or to go in his direction but not quite as far, then Republicans need to say no.  They need to say it carefully and thoughtfully, but they need to say it and they need to explain why.

Which brings us to the big question:  What is President Obama going to do?  How is he going to react?  Will he pull a “Bill Clinton” and flummox the Republicans so badly that he is able to cruise to re-election in 2012 or will the next two years be as bad politically for him as the past two years, without the satisfaction of seeing big new programs passed? 

I don’t know.  I doubt that anybody knows for sure.  One thing I will say, though.  Assuming the Republicans do not mess it up (a possibility which should not be discounted), it will be harder for the President if he continues in his role as sociologist-in-chief, telling us how and why many of us aren’t smart enough to agree with him.

Everybody remembers back in 2008, when then-Senator Obama said this to a group of campaign contributors in San Francisco:

“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Just a few weeks ago, President Obama explained some of the opposition to his programs as follows (in another fundraiser, this one in Massachusetts): 

"Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we're hardwired not to always think clearly when we're scared.  And the country's scared.”**

If this is what President Obama thinks of the people who oppose his programs, if this is how the President views those who disagree with him, then the next two years are going to be a long hard slog.

--------
* I do understand that Tea Partiers and independents overlap.  I use this distinction to more easily identify two imperatives that are facing the House Republicans.

** The connection between these comments and what some people perceive as a certain elitism in President Obama is probably worthy of a post or two.  Maybe someday.

Election 2010: Illinois

While nationally Republicans did great, Illinois was not so good (except Congress, where Mark Kirk won for Senate and Republicans picked up at least three House seats while keeping Mark Kirk’s old House seat).  The Illinois legislature, along with the governor’s race, was disappointing.  In the case of the latter the Republican candidate was not that good, but then the Democratic candidate was bad, too – unless you like the concept of Michael Madigan running the state.

But the legislature was most disappointing.  The Republicans did not pick up that many seats.   I am sure that I would be told this was because of the superior campaign organizations that the Democratic legislative leaders had.  And that may be true. 

In any case it means that Democrats will continue to control the budget in Illinois, which may be only fair.  While Illinois’ budget problems arguably started while George Ryan was governor, Democrats have controlled the whole process for the last eight years.  They decided how much to spend and how much to tax.  And they put us in the mess we are in.

Now it is up to them to get us out of it – assuming they are willing to do so.  They could have done it before, but they didn’t.  They apparently decided they would rather spend, borrow, not tax, and not pay the state’s bills than to cut spending and/or raise taxes – because cutting spending and/or raising taxes might have lost them votes, even though it was the responsible thing to do.

Of course, maybe we voters are to blame, too.  We keep electing them even though we knew what they were doing.  At some point we are all going to pay for this irresponsibility – at least those of us who can’t move.

A Quick First Comment on Election 2010

Some commentators will be saying that Tea Party activists have cost Republicans control of the Senate because of candidates like Sharron Angle in Nevada and Christine O’Donnell in Delaware.  If only the Republicans had nominated more moderate candidates (like Mike Castle in Delaware and Sue Lowden in Nevada), they could have won the Senate.  Maybe.  But I don’t think so. 

It was the enthusiasm of the Tea Partiers, combined with the record of the Democrats in Washington, that have given the Republican Party another chance.  Sure, some Republicans helped, people like Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.  But mostly it was people outside the regular Republican Party, who have done this, who have given Republicans the extra enthusiasm, the extra boost, to win so many races. 

In some cases the result was a candidate who might not have passed the William F. Buckley test (“I vote for the most conservative candidate who can win”), but you can’t always pick and choose.  The good comes with some bad.  You have to take them both.  And overall, it has been, as Peggy Noonan said, the thing that saved the Republican Party.

President Obama Claims His Opponents Are Using Foreign Campaign Contributions Against Him – Because, of Course, They Are Evil

The campaign has less than a month left, and things are not looking good for the Democrats.  And so, last week President Obama began suggesting that groups supporting Republican candidates are violating the law by accepting and using foreign money for campaign purposes.  According to The New York Times:

"President Obama used twin campaign appearances on Thursday to lash out at the private money that has filtered into Republican coffers for the November election campaign, suggesting that some of it came from abroad ….

In a not-so-veiled reference to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, President Obama complained that ‘groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections, and they won’t tell you where the money for their ads come from.’ Mr. Obama mentioned a report by the Center for American Progress, a liberal research group, which this week asserted in a blog that the Chamber of Commerce may be mingling money from foreign contributors with its domestic receipts as it pays for advertisements and other political activities. That could be illegal, and the Chamber has vehemently denied it.”

This idea of foreign campaign contributions being used against him (and against Democrats) has been a bête noire of President Obama for a long time.  In his criticism of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United v. FEC* during his State of the Union address, President Obama claimed that the decision would allow foreign corporations to make campaign contributions in our elections.  And he said this even though the majority opinion of Justice Kennedy specifically said it was not deciding that question.  (See part III.B.4 of Justice Kennedy’s opinion.)

It seems to me that what we are seeing in President Obama’s complaint/accusation is more than just normal politicking.  This is more than just complaining that the Republicans disagree with him.  It’s even more than they are not playing fair.  It’s that they are cheating; it’s that they are violating the law.  And he is saying it even though the President and the Democrats have no proof (also here); it’s just that the idea and the charge fit his, and other Democrats’, view of what Republicans do.  

This goes to a point I have made before (as have many others).  Republicans, at least regular/mainstream/standard Republicans, give Democrats the benefit of the doubt in assuming they have good intentions.  We think they really want to help people, etc.  In our view, the disagreements (and the disagreements are strong) are about means, not ends.  We don’t assume Democrats are selfish and/or don’t care about people.  We just think they want to go about it the wrong way.

It is not clear, however, that Democrats, including President Obama, feel the same way about Republicans.  In fact, it seems that they probably do not feel that way about us.  He/they (or at least many of them) do not seem to be willing to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt.  They seem to believe their campaign rhetoric that we just want to help the rich and we don’t care about the poor and the sick and the elderly, etc.  We’re out for ourselves and the heck with everybody else.  Democrats seem to have trouble accepting the idea that Republicans really do want to make this a better place for the poor and sick and needy.  It seems like they don’t believe that we just think there are better ways to do it than what they are proposing.

President Obama seems to get irritated when people disagree with his proposals and programs, especially when they get into the details that he doesn’t feel comfortable refuting.  So, instead, he brings the other side’s intentions into question.  He certainly has done that on taxes and health care.  He doesn’t seem willing to accept the idea that other people don’t agree that more government is the way to help people.  It seems that for President Obama – and other Democrats – more government programs and rules and money is the only way, or at least the best way, to help people.  They think that if a program is supposed to do something, then it actually will do that.  And, if you are against the bill or the program, it must be because you don’t want to help people.  It can’t be that you think there is a better way to do it or that you don’t think the program will work.  It has to be that you don’t care.

And if you don’t care, if you only think about yourself (and the rich), then it is only logical you would be willing to violate the campaign laws – by accepting foreign contributions – in order to win.  They don’t have to prove it; they just know we’re the kind of people who do things like that.

--------
* Among other things, the Court’s decision invalidated that part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (a/k/a McCain Feingold) which prohibited corporate entities (including businesses, unions and public interest groups) from spending money on political ads during the 60 days before a general election that actually mentioned candidates’ names (a novel thought: free speech in the period before an election).  The Court’s decision can be found here.)

Taxes. Who Should Pay More – and Why? The Return of Joe the Plumber.

Bloomberg News Service reports on a shift in the Democrats’ arguments about taxes:

“President Barack Obama has shifted his central argument against the Bush-era tax cuts to make the income gap as much a voter concern as the budget gap.

Since Sept. 3, Obama has chided Republicans for wanting to extend tax cuts for ‘millionaires and billionaires’ …. Before then, administration economists cast taxing the wealthy largely as a matter of fiscal prudence -- a way to free up $700 billion from the deficit over the next 10 years.”

But perhaps this quote, from near the end of the Bloomberg article, explains the Administration’s theory more clearly – or at least where things could be heading:

“James K. Galbraith, a University of Texas economist ..., said the Obama strategy should be seen as a first step toward rebalancing the tax system.

‘We don’t need higher taxes, we need better taxes,’ Galbraith, a former executive director of the Joint Economic Committee, said in a phone interview. ‘Putting income in the hands of people who need it, and not in the hands of people who don’t, is the right economic policy.’”

Note the progression.  President Obama talks about taxing billionaires and millionaires, but his tax increase starts at $250,000 ($200,000 if you’re single).  Professor Galbraith says the President’s plan is a first step to a system that takes money from those who don’t need it (in the government’s opinion and without any indicated level) and gives it to those who do (also, in the government’s opinion).  Which fits with what then-Senator Obama told Joe the Plumber back in 2008: Joe needed to pay more taxes because “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” 

Put your hand on your wallets, people; the government is coming, and it may think there are people who need your money more than you do.

Why Can’t Congress Help the Economy By Actually Agreeing On Tax Rates for Next Year?

The economy is sputtering, and either nobody knows what to do about it or everybody knows what to do about it.  Of course, it doesn’t matter whether nobody knows how to fix it or everybody knows how to fix it because even if everybody knows how to fix it, everybody also has their own plan, which means that nobody really knows what will work.

But, I think many people would agree, at the very least, that all of the uncertainty we have in the economy is not helping.  If you want people to spend, business to invest, companies to hire, it helps if they have some idea as to what is probably going to happen in at least the near future.  Obviously, you can never know for certain.  If you could, you’d go to Las Vegas, make some bets and retire.  But even if we can’t eliminate all uncertainty, we ought to be able to eliminate some of it.  For example, we may not be able to know about oil prices next year or what’s going to happen to the corn crop, but we ought to be able to tell people what their tax rates are going to be next year.  Except we can’t.

Congress and the President have known since they were sworn in in January of 2009 that taxes were scheduled to go up on January 1, 2011.  And for most of that time they have known that it would not be good for the economy if taxes, or at least some of them, did go up.  They have known for months that something needed to be done, and as the economy starting sputtering, they have known (or should have known, which is the same thing) that uncertainty as to what is going to happen is not good.

The Democrats say that the reason nothing has been done is because of Republican obstructionism:  The Republicans won’t let a tax cut (or at least a continuation of the current tax rates) pass for those making under $250,000 ($200,000 for a single person) unless Congress passes that same kind of cut/continuation for those making over $250,000 ($200,000 for a single person).  The Republicans are holding a middle class tax cut hostage for a tax cut for the rich – at least that is what Presidential Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is saying in this video.

Among the problems with that argument, as some of the questioners’ in the video noted, are that the Republicans don’t control Congress and the Democrats didn’t even try to pass a bill.  As to the first point, i.e., the Republicans don’t control Congress, the Republicans do have 41 seats in the Senate, but they can’t come close to stopping anything in the House.  There are 255 Democrats and 178 Republicans in the House (there are two vacancies).  If 218 Democrats can agree, they can pass whatever they want.  Maybe there would be a problem in the Senate, but if all of the Democrats agreed in the Senate, I find it hard to believe they couldn’t figure out some way to pick off one or two Republicans.  That’s what they did with the most recent extension of unemployment benefits, and it passed.

Maybe it is getting a little late to do something now (though it would seem to be even later after November 2), but why did the Democrats wait so long to try?  If uncertainty is a problem for the economy (and I think it is), why didn’t they start working on taxes in May?  (Note that I deliberately picked a date after the President’s health care plan passed.  Nothing, not even getting the economy going, was more important to President Obama than passing a health care plan, even though much of it won’t become effective until January 1, 2014.)

So, why didn’t the Democrats pass a bill through the House (they could lose 38 votes and still pass it), and then dare the Republicans to filibuster their middle class tax cut/continuation in the Senate?  I mean, if necessary, the Democrats could have given a little bit here or a little bit there to pick up one Republican vote.  It might not have taken much.*  But, in fact, they didn’t even introduce a bill in the Senate, and they didn’t vote in the House.

So how is it the Republicans’ fault that a tax cut/continuation didn’t pass? Or was it really because President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid couldn’t get enough Democrats to vote for their plan?  Did they wait until the fall (even though the economy would have been better off if it was done earlier) because they thought that Republicans pushing for a tax cut/continuation for everybody, i.e., for the rich (in the Obama/Pelosi/Reid view), would be a great campaign issue – and then they discovered they couldn’t get enough of their own members to vote for it because too many constituents seemed to agree with the Republicans?

But once again, why didn’t they at least bring something to a vote?  But they didn’t.  Instead, they point the finger at Republicans, and talk about how the Republicans only care about the rich.  President Obama talks about the $700 billion cost of continuing the Bush tax cuts for those earning over $250,000 ($200,000 if single), though he never mentions the $3 trillion cost of continuing the Bush tax cuts for the middle class.**  (You can’t blame the Republicans for not trying to pass their plan, i.e., a tax cut/continuation for everyone, because the Democrats never let it come to a vote.)

So why are the Democrats doing it?  It looks like it’s one of two things.  Either it’s more important to the Democrats, or at least the Democratic leadership (Obama/Pelosi/Reid, et al), to have this as a political issue to use against the Republicans than it is to make some changes in their plan to get it passed.  Either that or the Democratic leadership so much wants to raise taxes on the rich, because it is “unfair” how much of their money the “rich” are getting to keep, that they are not going to give in.***

----------
* Maybe they could have raised the level at which the tax increase kicked in to $500,000 or agreed to delay the increase on those making over $250,000 ($200,000 if single) for a year or two, while locking in the cut/continuation for those making under that level.  Or they could have agreed to raise taxes on the rich a little less than they were originally proposing.  But they didn’t try any of those.

** Also, the fact is that the Republicans don’t control Congress.  They don’t get to decide what bills get voted on or when; that’s Nancy Pelosi’s job and Harry Reid’s job.

*** I realize this last point seems a little extreme, but consider then-Senator Obama’s interview with Charlie Gibson back in 2008, when he basically said he wanted to raise capital gains taxes because of fairness, regardless of whether the increase in the tax rate actually raised money or not.  (See here.)

Earmarks – and the Story of a Gauge on a Boiler

A long time ago a minister at church was talking about a boiler she had seen.  The boiler had a gauge on the outside that, basically, told you what was going on inside the boiler.  By looking at the gauge, you could tell whether there was enough water in the boiler, whether it was too hot, etc.*  The minister went on to say that, in the way the gauge showed what was going on inside the boiler, the faithfulness of our actions showed the faithfulness that was inside us. 

I thought of this point recently when I read about the debate among Republicans on Capitol Hill about earmarks.  In March the House Republicans agreed to a one-year ban on earmarks.  But the Pledge to America that the House Republicans issued last week did not mention earmarks.  Representative Paul Ryan (R, WI) said that the Republicans intended to keep the ban, so it wasn’t necessary to mention it; i.e., it’s not something new.

Other Republicans, however, want to get rid of the ban.  Representative Jerry Lewis (R, CA) maintains earmarks are a form of direct democracy and that individual legislators know what their districts need better than government bureaucrats.  Senator Jim Inhofe (R, OK) says that cutting earmarks doesn’t cut spending and that “[d]eciding how money should be spent is what we are supposed to be doing in Congress.”**

I understand the theory of why earmarks, in some cases, can be okay or even good.  And I know that some representatives can be trusted.  But the fact is that too many Representatives and Senators have abused earmarks.  And while individual earmarks may not involve that much money (though the bridge to nowhere, which was originally approved by a Republican Congress, was to cost $223 million and that is real money), the total does add up.

But beyond that, earmarks are a symbol.  If Senators and Representatives aren’t willing to give up earmarks, how can we trust them to cut other spending?  They say they will, but why should we believe them?

This is a real problem for Republicans.  The Bush administration and its Republican allies in Congress increased spending more than any administration since Lyndon Johnson.  Because of this history, Republicans need to demonstrate to voters that they really mean it when they say they will control spending this time.  As Paul Ryan says, “We need to prove that we’re not going to try to pork our way back to a permanent majority, as we were trying to do before.”

Which brings me back to the gauge on the boiler.  Republicans say they will cut spending if they get control of Congress, but will they really do it?  Will they really cut back on government?  Do they mean what they are saying?  A ban on earmarks would be a good gauge.

----------
* I am not sure whether I remember exactly what the gauge showed; it was a long time ago.  But the general point is right.

** The quotations and attributions in this post are from: Neil King, Jr., “Earmarks Cause GOP Rift,” The Wall Street Journal, September 24, 2010.

Update (9/28/10 12:33 pm): Corrected a typo in the title.

Republicans, Democrats and the Tea Party: What’s Going to Happen Now?

There were, as there have been all year, some big surprises in the primaries on Tuesday.  And, has generally been the case this year, the surprises were on the Republican side.  Basically, the surprises have been the same all year: a regular Republican is beaten by a Tea Party/Sarah Palin/Jim DeMint-backed candidate.  Incumbent Republicans have been beaten (Bob Bennett, Lisa Murkowski).  Party favored candidates who were favored to beat Democrat incumbents have lost (Sue Lowden, Mike Castle).  “Extreme” candidates have won nominations where a “regular” conservative could have more easily won an open seat or held a Republican seat (Rand Paul).  And that’s just the Senate.

Republican Party regulars, who saw a chance for the Republicans to win the House – and maybe even the Senate, have been disappointed because they see their chances slipping away.  Democrats, who saw a chance for the Republicans to win the House – and maybe even the Senate, are ecstatic because they, too, see the Republicans’ chances slipping away. 

So what is going to happen?  I think the safest, and most honest answer, is that nobody knows.  2006 was pretty easy to predict.  The war in Iraq was going badly.  Katrina made President Bush look incompetent, and besides, people were tired of him.  The Democrats were going to win.  2008 was much the same, at least once the two candidates were nominated for president. There was a Republican and there was a Democrat.  Two parties; two candidates.  Pretty simple.

But now things are not so simple because we don’t have just two parties, we have three:  Democratic, Republican and Tea.  Big spending, big government, big deficits have hurt the Democrats.  (They would say that it is unfair, that it started with President Bush, but nobody said life is fair.)  Republicans think this gives them a chance, but four years ago, a lot of people were voting against the Republicans for the same reasons.  A lot of people are now leaning towards the Republicans, but it is less out of liking the Republicans than disliking the Democrats.

Which brings us to the third party, the Tea Party – or, perhaps, more appropriately, the Tea Parties because there seem to be a lot of them out there.  They don’t like the Democrats, but they feel no obligation to do what the Republicans want either.  They remember what the Republicans did the last time they were in power.  How do they know the Republicans won’t do the same thing again?  The Republicans aren’t leading because they have cleaned house and gotten their act together.  Where Republicans are leading, it’s because individual candidates are good or because they’re not Democrats.

Fed-up Republicans, disillusioned independents, and ticked-off Tea Partiers aren’t really interested in strategic voting (i.e., voting for a person who can win as opposed to the person who you really agree with).  They just know they are tired of all the people in Washington, whether they are Democrats or Republicans, and they want something different.

They are probably also getting tired of all the names they are being called.  Democrats and the mainstream media (assuming this is not a redundancy) are calling them extremists, haters, driven by fear, gullible and, of course, racists.  (They are probably also viewed as clinging to their guns and religion.)  The New York Times wrote, incredulously, that Christine O’Donnell at one time said there was scientific evidence that God created the world in six 24-hour days.  Heck, I know somebody who believed God created the world in six 24-hour days and still thinks it’s possible, and they’re not extremist.  I also know people who have gone to Tea Party events, and I can assure you they are none of the adjectives listed above.  They’re just good people who care.

So what is going to happen?  Will the Democrats stay in power because of some of the weird candidates nominated by the Republicans?  Can the Republicans win in spite of those “weird” candidates?  Or will the Republicans win precisely because people like those supposedly “weird” candidates?

As I said, I don’t know.  I do think there is something going on that the Democrats don’t understand (because it is so alien to their ways of thinking) and that the Republicans can’t control (even though they’d like to).  The frustration that has generated the Tea Party movement and the enthusiasm that drives it/them now seem different than other recent protest movements.  Some people compare the Tea Party movement to Ross Perot, but I don’t agree.  The Tea Party isn’t one guy paying for everything.  This is people organizing themselves.

The question is:  How is the Tea Party movement going to turn out?  Will it be like one of those little girl tea parties, with all their dolls?  They are so much fun.  But then the little girls grow up, and the tea parties are no more.  Or is this a tea party of the Boston type, one that just might set off a revolution?

Probably the best thing that can be said at this point is what those mutual funds always say: “Past performance is not an indication of future results.”  All we can do is wait and see.

My Enthusiasm for Mark Kirk Is Back

Back in June I wrote about my frustration with Mark Kirk.  Representative Kirk took a Senate race that should have been an easy win for the Republicans and turned into a close contest by his exaggerations and embellishments, especially about his service in the Navy Reserves.  The thing that was really frustrating was how unnecessary it was.  Just being in the Reserves was impressive enough.  So now, with Labor Day past (the day that used to mark the beginning of the fall campaign), how do I feel?

I am still a little frustrated, but I have come to realize two things.  First, while Representative Kirk should not have done what he did, consider what we are really talking about.  We’re not talking about taking bribes or about saying one thing before the election even though you know you are going to do something different afterwards, the kinds of things so common among Illinois politicians.  We’re talking about puffing on a resume.  It’s not great, but it’s not the end of the world, either.*

Second, and more importantly, I realized that this election is too important for me to let some personal irritation stand in the way electing the better candidate.  Because that is the point.  We are down to two candidates.  One of them is going to win.  Either we are going to send a senator to Washington who will be an automatic vote for whatever Barack Obama, Harry Reid (assuming he is still there) and Dick Durbin want.  Or we can send somebody to the Senate who will not vote for every big spending, big government, big deficit measure the Democratic leadership wants to pass.

This election is not about puffing on resumes – or even loans to mobsters.  This election is about who is going to Washington and what they will do when they get there.  If you think big government is always the solution to our problems, if you think more and more government spending is the way to get the economy going, then you should vote for Mark Kirk’s opponent.  Because he will support the Democratic leadership in doing that.  But if you think government doesn’t know everything, if you think letting people spend their own money might help the economy, then Mark Kirk is your candidate. 

Also, if you have listened to Mark Kirk talk, whether about foreign affairs or things at home, you know that he is somebody we can send to the Senate who really knows about the problems we face, both here and in the world.  And he has good ideas as to what we should do about them.

To those Republicans and conservatives who may not like all of Mark Kirk’s positions, I will defer to William F. Buckley, Jr., whose rule was to vote for the most conservative candidate –who could win.**  In Illinois in 2010, that’s Mark Kirk.

And so, my enthusiasm is back.  The bumper sticker is still on my car.  And the yard sign went up on Thursday.

-----------
* I would not be surprised if the Democrats have another example or two of puffing that they are holding back to bring out just before the election.  But those things should be looked at with a view as to why they are being publicized just before the election.

** “The Tea Party and the GOP,” The Wall Street Journal, September 8, 2010.

Republicans Need to Be More than "Not Democrats"

David Broder recently looked at a new poll done for a group called the Third Way. The poll was done by a company that has worked for Obama campaigns in the past, and the report accompanying the poll suggested a way the Democrats could improve their chances in November: "Run against George Bush." Actually, that is not exactly what it said. If that is all it said, it wouldn’t be a big deal since the Democrats haven’t stopped blaming Bush for everything bad since even before he was inaugurated.

Rather, what the poll said was, in Mr. Broder’s words, this: "Obama's economic agenda is preferred over Bush's by 49 percent to 34 percent." Greg Sargent in The Washington Post’s "The Plum Line" quoted the polling company as then explaining:

"If Americans believe that conservatives are espousing a return to the same economic ideas as those of the former President, the dynamic of the debate turns on its head. … In two separate split sample questions, we tested President Obama's economic plan …. When President Bush was inserted in the question, the Obama agenda easily won.

In other words, Democrats not only need to blame President Bush, they also need to convince voters that voting for Republicans for Congress will result in a return to the policies of George W. Bush

But while the poll tells Democrats what they need to try to do, it also points the way for Republicans. According to Mr. Broder:

"Unprompted, only 25 percent of voters in this survey said they think that if Republicans regain a majority, it will signal a return to Bush's economic policies. By comparison, 65 percent say a Republican Congress would promote ‘a new economic agenda that is different’ from Bush's."

Mr. Broder continues:

"[A] generic conservative approach, pitting a leader ‘who will start from scratch with new ideas to shrink government, cut taxes and grow the economy’ beats one committed to sticking with Obama's policies, 64 percent to 30 percent."

So while Democrats argue that voting Republican means a return to the President Bush’s policies, Republicans have to convince people it won’t.

Now, the easiest thing for Republicans to do in this election would be to sit back and wait for people to vote them because they aren’t Democrats. But even if that works in November, it’s not going to work after November

Republicans have been given an opportunity they probably don’t deserve. After the overspending and mismanagement of the George W. Bush years, both in the executive branch and in Congress, it would not have been surprising if voters had stayed away from the Republicans for years. But the Democrats have made so many mistakes that people are starting to look at the Republicans again.

But this is where the Democrats’ attempt to link today’s Republicans with the policies of George W. Bush is a danger. If the Republicans just say what they aren’t (i.e., they aren’t Democrats), as opposed to what they are, the Democratic strategy of tying Republicans to George W. Bush’s economic policies may work, at least with enough voters to make a difference in a number of close races. Which means the Republicans need to do more than just say, vote for us, we’re not Democrats. Republicans need a positive campaign of their own, a campaign that will explain why electing Republicans in November will not result in George W. Bush redux.

And as part of doing that, I think the Republicans could do a lot worse than to take the Domino’s Pizza approach. Domino’s came on TV and admitted their pizza wasn’t any good, but they promised to make it better. And they did.

Republicans need to do the same thing. They need admit that they made a lot of mistakes the last time they controlled Congress. They spent too much; they earmarked too much; they didn’t keep things under control. Republicans need to say they are sorry, and they need to promise not to let it happen again.

For some people, Republicans still have a "brand’ of lower spending and smaller government. But the George W. Bush presidency and the Republican congresses of the 2000s put that brand in jeopardy. The best way for the Republicans to reclaim that brand, to reclaim their historic principles, it is to be honest with the American people: Admit their mistakes and explain why they are not going to do it again.

The Third Way poll showed a majority for ideas that would "shrink government, cut taxes and grow the economy." Those are good Republican ideas (or they ought to be), but Republicans need to do more than just promise. They need to show they mean it. That means taking positions, even it they aren’t easy – and doing it now. Identify things that need to be cut. This may upset the special interests who will lose their spot at the public trough. But if Republicans aren’t willing to take positions like this now, why would anybody believe they will do it after the election?

Some people will say this is dangerous. That may be true, but the alternatives are worse: Either the Republicans lose the election because the Democrats are able to convince people that voting for Republicans is voting for a return to the economic policies of George W. Bush or they win the election and risk falling back into the bad habits of the George W. Bush Congresses because they didn’t establish the policies they were going to follow before they won. The former lets the Democrats keep the messing up the country. The latter could mean Republicans will mess up the country again – and lose their own future, too. Because if the Republicans in Congress do it like they did before, it could be a long time before the voters let them have another chance.