« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The GOP could easily be back in the wilderness in 2014

From the Diaries by Erick.

Introduction

My first political act was attending a Ronald Reagan rally back in 1980.

Since then I’ve watched with great disappointment the ability of the GOP to turn opportunities into wasted piles of crap and to push soft Republicans and weary independents into the arms of the Democrats or those who don’t vote.

Such moves have led to this kind of apathy among even people who would love to be dedicated Republicans: “Unfortunately neither party, once in power appears to be terribly concerned with limiting their own power” and “The only people I see truly dedicated to limiting government are the Tea Party, but I’m not so sure they can get enough broad support to make it happen” (both real quotes from friends of mine in response to a note I posted on facebook).

Let me ask you this question: If you were to survey ten of your closest friends who you considered soft Republicans (they either voted for Obama or considered it), what would they say the number one issue for the Republicans should be after they win in November?

I’m betting you either said “cut government spending” or “get rid of healthcare” or “make government smaller.”

Now ask them a different question. “Where did the GOP go wrong in the 1990s and the early 2000s when they had control?”

They will probably say one of two things “they spent too much” or “they wasted all their time investigating Clinton.”

At least that has been my experience in talking to my “soft” Republican and independent friends who lean conservative in their ideals.

Rolling to victory in November

The Republicans are rolling to victory in November. I think they will be slightly short when it comes to the Senate but they should be able to make a big enough dent that we can ignore the moderates most of the time and still pull a fillibuster out of the hat.

And why are we going to win? Because the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It is not that the GOP suddenly has a fabulous message (although they are at least back on message) as it is that they are terrified of what Barak Obama is doing to the country and so they are planning to hamstring Barak as much as possible.

Don’t get me wrong, there are definitely some people out there who would love to come back to the GOP for good and the momentum is ours for the taking.

I’m happy and I think we are adding some great conservative voices to the Congress.

So why the doom and gloom headline?

Because we’ve been here before — 2002 — It should’ve been great. Control of congress, GOP President and all we got is bigger government and a lot of pissed off independents and soft Republicans.

Will we never learn?

So what do our leaders have in store for the new congress?

1) GOP plans widespread White House probes

Republican staffers say there won’t be any self-destructive witch hunts, but they clearly are relishing the prospect of extracting information from an administration that touts transparency.

And a handful of aggressive would-be committee chairmen — led by Reps. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Lamar Smith, R-Texas — are quietly gearing up for a possible season of subpoenas not seen since the Clinton wars of the late 1990s.

Fabulous! Because everywhere I go in America, I hear people saying “Hey, let’s take over congress so we can probe the White House.” That’s right, people want to probe the White House because that’s so important to them.

No, it’s not. It’s important to congressmen and professional politicians who want to take some scalps.

We, out here, would like some jobs and some lower taxes and maybe divesting the country of Fannie, Freddie, and GM.

2) As Erick noted here, the GOP plans to allow earmarking again.

Really? Because that has worked out so well for both the country and the GOP as a whole.

Compare Eric Cantor’s attitude on earmarks here:

“Republicans may roll back their ban on earmarks, as long as the spending items have ‘merit.’”

with Reagan’s approach to earmarks by not only vetoeing bills that had them but by trying to actually use a legal constitutional argument to ignore them (since they were not in the law themselves but were in the report language and not the bill itself).

Finally, check that against the attitude of President James Madison when he vetoed the first ever bill that contained earmarks:

President James Madison vetoed the bill as unconstitutional. He explains his reasoning to Congress in his veto message:

Having considered the bill … I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling this bill with the Constitution of the United States. … The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified … in the … Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers. …

And regarding the General Welfare Clause, Madison responds:

Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms ‘common defense and general welfare’ embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust.

What I wouldn’t give to get every member of congress on record on their views on that! Talk about made for political ad fodder.

3) The continued love affair with offshoring jobs and H-1B visas

The final issue (and I admit that I don’t have any sure fire way to fix this issue) is the GOP’s obsession with making it easier to offshore jobs and increase H-1B visas.

This may be one of the reasons (along with abortion) that Carly Fiorina lags behind Meg Whitman in California. Carly was the great outsourcer at HP and one of the most vocal supporters of giving away American jobs to cheaper foreigners (sorry folks, with layoffs and the recession, there are no more than a handful of jobs that we couldn’t find a displaced American IT worker to fill quite ablely).

While in its infancy, this may have been a great way to give the top 1% of smart people from around the world a pathway to America, it has become about pandering to the big companies that provide the GOP with campaign money and undercutting workers salaries.

How To Prevent the Problem

Is there a way to prevent a return to the wilderness? There is although it’s hard for me to believe that our congressional leaders are smart enough to listen to us when we tell them what it is.

Congress should be ruled by three principles:

1) With regards to the use of their time (i.e. to investigate or not to investigate), congress critters should ask themselves “Is this the best use of my time to alleviate the problems of the American people?” or “Am I solving one of the top five problems that affects the American people?”

We don’t need endless news cycles about subpoenas and and who told who what if we want to stay in the business of ruling the country. If you want to take political scalps, resign from congress and go home and join the local homeowner’s association.

How about taking your time on the government oversight committee to check for wasteful spending and try to find one hundred regulations to cut during the first hundred days you are in congress?

How about spending your committee time asking questions about why all of the positions in a given department need to be filled?

How about spending your time asking department secretaries which programs could be combined so that the American people could save some money?

2) With regards to the use of our money, congress should ask, “How can I reduce the size of government?” and “Is this a critical need to help the American people?” and “Would I donate my own money for a project like this?”

Selling off Fannie, Freddie, GM, etc would quickly reduce the size of government.

Earmarks are never going to be the answer in a case like this. Do you know what the polls for 2012 would look like if the House of Representatives passed an earmark free appropriations bill in the coming year? I guarentee that we could push it through the Senate as well simply by shaming people into voting for it (especially Dem’s up for election in 2012)?

This simple act would lead to a huge movement from independents into the GOP tent on a permanent or semi-permanent basis.

3) With regards to taxes, tariffs, visas, illegal immigration enforcement, congressmen should ask themselves this question: “What policies can I enact that will create the most private sector jobs for America for the next year, ten years, and forty years?”

Realisitically looking at a big reduction in federal regulations, lowering taxes down to level of 20% of GDP, shuttering businesses that hire illegal aliens, and increased border security will all open up opportunities for Americans displaced either through overregulation or through the taking of jobs by illegals.

Finally, we need to pick our 2012 presidential nominee with care

Finally, when November is done, we need to pick our GOP nominee carefully.

I know we all have our favorites (I have mine as well ), but we ALL (myself included) will need to take a hard look at our nominees and find someone who will and HAS fought for smaller government not just talked about it.

The last thing we need to do is to turnover a GOP leaning (or hopefully completely owned) congress to a “big government conservative” (scare quotes intended to be REALLY scary) in 2012.

Or even worse nominate an unelectable Bob Dole type (I know it’s your turn, but this isn’t the local deli counter!).

There should be at least two or three ELECTABLE, CONSERVATIVE choices out there.

Conclusion

For now, push those Republicans through to November and then be ready to hold their feet to the fire!

Politicians seem to have a gene in their system that turns them from conservatives into trough suckers once they get to Washington.

We need to remind them who is boss and push them to choose conservative leaders like Jim DeMint and Paul Ryan and ignore the Mitch McConnells and Eric Cantors of the world.

Remember that if we don’t push our congressmen on a regular basis on how to govern then we will be right back in the wilderness in 2014.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • coldair

    “They will probably say one of two things ‘they spent too much’ or ‘they wasted all their time investigating Clinton.’?

    I agree. And we should learn from the “spent too much” problem. Fortunately, we have the likelihood of gaining some real conservative leadership; in the Clinton era, we were led primarily by Gingrich – whom we have since pretty convincingly realized is not a true, consistent conservative.

    I’m not so sure about the investigation thing. Clinton was investigated for WhiteWater and – incidentally – for Monica (probably some other stuff, but who remembers – or even knew about?). WhiteWater was pre-office, and the sex stuff was titillating, but not ultimately edifying.

    Not necessarily true with Lord Zero. Investigations of his administration could disclose some real abuses of power, and some demonstration of intent to “reform” (shall we say) the American Ideal. These are some issues beyond “dirty underwear” that could be worth ferreting out and showing to people.

    • ywhyvon1

      The MAIN focus should’nt be past bad deeds with the intent to convict but rather a little window washing so we may see through the window. Transparacy ,if you will.

      We need to know what these traitors were doing so we can look for it again and call it out but to try to proscecute would look like persecution and that’s something we really don’t need to get into, unless of course, there is a really extreme amount of clear evidence to the contrary in any given incident.

      • calgacus

        The H 1-B visas are better than the unskilled aliens. At least those people are not parasitic.

        • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

          but not the type of personal attacks like those aimed at Clinton, or even probes of suspicious financial behavior.

          What I want to see are congressmen dragging bureaucratic operatives from the EPA, Justice, and other agencies in and ask them why the hell they are either overstepping their authority, or not doing their job.

    • walter_hanson

      Cold:

      President Clinton instead of having the common sense of trying to end Paula Jones lawsuit by an apology (at one time that was the price once it became public) went out and did things which if you did as a private citizen would’ve got you throw into jail let alone fired.

      He committed perjury. Just ask Martha Stewart, Scotter Libby, and the former Illnois governor if that is no big deal.

      He tried to rig a lawsuit. He got a friend to get a nice high paying job to secure a witness’ coperation. That witness by the way if you read the Star report wrote a letter to the president which in effect was a blackmail letter even though she didn’t think of it as one.

      Unfortunately, we lost the PR war and let the Democrats say it was all about sex and god forbid our moderates in the Senate ran for the Hills and cooperated with the Democrats plan to burry it.

      Walter Hanson
      Minneapolis, MN

  • ywhyvon1

    even though I did like the Lord of the Rings:)

  • mjdzfun

    I have said, I have posted, I have commented, I have emailed, I’ve spoken to others @ Tea Party Rallies–

    We need to elect conservatives to put a check on Obama, but once we put the Republicans back in power we need to treat them like we are the parole and probation board.

    All is not forgotten and all is certainly not forgiven.

  • ywhyvon1

    ALL TALK AND NO ACTION MAKE WANNABE CONSERVATIVE ACTIVIST DULL ALL TALK AND NO ACTION MAKE WANNABE CONSERVATIVE ACTIVIST DULL ALL TALK AND NO ACTION MAKE WANNABE CONSERVATIVE ACTIVIST DULLALL TALK AND NO ACTION MAKE WANNABE CONSERVATIVE ACTIVIST DULLALL TALK AND NO ACTION MAKE WANNABE CONSERVATIVE ACTIVIST DULLALL TALK AND NO ACTION MAKE WANNABE CONSERVATIVE ACTIVIST DULLALL TALK AND NO ACTION MAKE WANNABE CONSERVATIVE ACTIVIST DULLALL TALK AND NO ACTION MAKE WANNABE CONSERVATIVE ACTIVIST DULLALL TALK AND NO ACTION MAKE WANNABE CONSERVATIVE ACTIVIST DULLALL TALK AND NO ACTION MAKE WANNABE CONSERVATIVE ACTIVIST DULL

  • aesthete

    It’s so much more fun to stomp your foot, furrow your brow, and make speeches about looking for the “truth”. All this rolling back government spending and regulations stuff sounds like, you know, work!

    Great post. I will also add that right now, the majority of those in the Republican party (around 55%) don’t feel like they are represented by their leaders, while the vast majority of Dems (around 80-90%) feel that they are. I fear that if the GOP doesn’t get serious about spending, they’re looking at potentially more dramatic consequences than hanging out in the wilderness for a while.

    One caveat on the outsourcing of jobs: we really don’t want to give in to populist rhetoric on the subject. Economically speaking, one of the worst things we can do right now is to eliminate free trade, and though H1-Bs need to be reformed, they should not be cut based on those desires. The Great Depression and the dissolution of global trade was a large factor in the slowness of the recovery, and given that our economic problems are global, we should not sacrifice the gains made by free trade and relatively free use of labor that we have in this country for a marginal change in employment.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    Starve the beast and demand McConnell’s resignation.

    Until the GOP, NRSC, NRCC and every other party organization gets in lock step on an agenda that a majority of Americans want, they won’t see a dime. Oh, they can keep scooping it up from the deep-pocket folks who will need something from them post November. But then, they should remember what is about to happen to this current Congress.

    If Republicans think THIS election is going to be historic, it is simply a prelude of their own fate should they try a return to “business as usual”.

    Working with stale paradigms won’t do anything to win back the confidence of voters, especially independents. I will keep giving directly to candidates who support an American majority agenda- even post election. That is a trend which portends the death of a universal need for party money and support.

    If people hate the party, it becomes an albatross that nobody wants “help” from. These folks shouldn’t get to comfortable with the thought it is a sine qua non.

  • IJB

    That’s a good way to, 1) *not* win over Indies, and 2) lose the Base.

    There is *plenty* of legitimate stuff that Zero & co. have done in two years that need to be investigated:

    1) The dropping of the New Black Panthers case.
    2) ICE and ‘backdoor’ amnesty.
    3) Sestak, Romanov & ‘Jobgate’
    4) The takeover of GM & Chrysler
    5) Czar craziness

    …to name just 5 off the top of my head.

    If you’re suggesting that we give Zero a pass on all of this, I strongly, strenuously disagree.

    • aesthete

      It’s like when lefties kept demanding the heads of Bush appointees: no one gives a crap, and it’s a lot easier to reorganize quietly than to go to war against appointees voters have never heard of, especially since a lot of this prosecution is politically, and not strategically, motivated. If Obama is doing the appointing, he’s not going to pick someone more moderate to replace the guy who gets nailed in a subpoena, he’ll just find someone “respectable” with the same views and goals.

      • http://www.2010blog.net jsanzone

        Republican congressmen will look pathetic if they sit idly as big government simmers and expands, while they try to justify spending time and resources on the New Black Panthers and ACORN.

    • Oz

      Obama and the Dems are getting crushed because they ran with their pet projects instead of focusing on the economy and ignoring the people.

      We will be in the same boat if we spend more time on inquries than on fixing the economy, slimming down government, and working on illegal immigration.

      I think that all five of the things you listed while important should be crammed into a small window … say October 2011 to February 2012.

      Prior to that, fix the economy (extending tax relief and cutting size of government) and after that working on other issues people care about.

      I am interested in winning for the long term and while I think it is fine to make illusions to the problems you state, but it is a waste of time to worry about #1, #3, #4.

      #2 and #5 have ramifications going forward and fall into a) solving illegal immigration and b) slimming down government.

      I would gladly trade all five of those issues (especially their past ramifications) as long as they are fixed going forward in exchange for a 7% unemployment rate and if we could do that, we would take over the congress and the WH in 2012.

      • IJB

        The point is, you do BOTH.

        This isn’t about *just* appealing to Indies.

        You do things that appeal to Indies *AND* you do things that appeal to the Base.

        This is just like the people who want to shove Social/Cultural issues off the stage because it might “scare Indies” – it’s a net loser because you lose the Base. You have to do (different) things that (separately) appeal to *both* groups.

        No one is talking about “focusing ‘more’ on inquiries than solutions” – that’s a total strawman. And I don’t think you can fix them going forward without examining them first.

        The fact is, you have to do *BOTH*.

        But not focusing on how the Dems ‘game’ gov’t is a recipe for letting do the same things the next time they get in there – you investigate that stuff now so they can’t get away with it next time. (And then you hopefully use the results of the inquiries to go after the Dem power structures inside, and outside, the gov’t.)

        And your acquiescence to ‘memory hole’ a vote intimidation case is a particularly bad idea, esp. when you consider that the Dems have been stealing elections regularly for 3 decades now – we need to push back on the NOW. If you let the Dems skate on this here, there will just be 20 times more of stuff like that in 2012.

        Here’s what you do:

        1) Cut spending, and focus on job creation, to make the Indies (and everyone else) happy.

        AND

        2) Investigate all the crud Dems have pulled to make the Base happy, *and* to put Dems back on their heals.

        You guys seem purely interested in playing only one part of the game. That’s a recipe for losing, long-term.

        Now, having said all that – your idea to put these things off until Fall of 2011 has a lot of merit. (Provided they don’t just get “forgotten about” at that point…)

        • SIConservative

          Nobody is voting, campaigning, lobbying, or talking with their friends for government investigations. If Republicans take over and defund Obamacare, audit the Fed, force the President to the middle on judges, pass tax cuts, and start repealing unnecessary regulations, we win. If any of those things get sidetracked or swept under the carpet because of government investigations, there’s really no reason for anyone, Republicans, Democrats, or independents, to support Republicans, and we deserve to lose both the White House and Congress in ’12.

    • JEM

      The lessons of the Clinton impeachment for a GOP House are pretty clear.

      1) Stay away from the personal.

      2) Don’t go on fishing expeditions.

      3) Do not act unless you’ve got public opinion and the Senate behind you.

      Rep Issa needs to stay away from Obama personally and focus on clear violations of rule and ethics, stick with those cases that fit with the public perception of this administration as an out-of-control one-party autocracy.

      The two clearest examples I can think of are the DOJ’s handling of the NBP case and the EPA’s CO2 endangerment finding. The latter is, I think, so bad once you peel back that rancid onion that I suspect Lisa Jackson will find a reason to exit government rather than try to defend it.

      Sestak’s small potatoes, especially once he loses and is flushed out of the body politic. The public sees that one as ‘just politics’.

      Some of the other possible areas you list – TARP handling, bypassing Congress’ confirmation of cabinet/subcabinet appointees with ‘czars’, GM/Chrysler – fit with the runaway-authoritarian administration story line but may turn into fishing expeditions.

    • Achance

      or even a staffer if you want to be really insulting, just call the offender in and give him/her a look at the future after the Chairman is finished with the budget. The officeholders are pretty much immune. If you get them fired, they just go to work for one of the Democrat front groups and the Administration just brings in another one just like the one that got fired. If you really want to cause the Ds pain, you go after their front organizations. Angry about the takeover of GM and Chrysler? Go after UAW’s dues structure and pension administration. Don’t like the czars? Whack the WH budget and then go after the interest group that the czar comes from/represents.

      • avgjo

        That’s stategery there.

        Thanks as always for giving practical, experienced insight.

        • AceInTX

          I’ve often thought we’ve missed an opportunity to pull in blue collar workers who have watched their jobs sent out of the country by refusing to acknowledge the real consequences to this country and to businesses of diminishing our consumer base by going for the cheap labor over seas.

          There is always a quick rush of black ink to the bottom line that comes from eliminating costly payrolls…but the long term consequence is a diminished consumer base that is able to buy your goods and/or services.

          • walter_hanson

            Oz:

            Your first claim was that Republicans spent too much money. Keep in mind until 2001 I believe when John Kasich was chairman of the budget committee we were committed to a tight budget to balance it. Once it got balanced people thought we could spend and after three election cycles the lost sight of the goal of a tight budget. That plus Kasich left! That plus President Bush didn’t veto bills until the Democrats took control of Congress.

            You won’t have problem one with a candidate in 2012 who is committed to reducing the deficit and spending. A chairman of the budget committee like Kasich will control the spending. The key isn’t if a couple of earmarks slip through one in awhile, but if we can take a $4 trillion dollar budget to $3 trillion not up to $5 trillion.

            As for the investigations keep in mind people were convinced by Democrat PR spin that it was only about sex. They didn’t want to turn their TV on everynight and hear about Monica and sex. The type of investigations that are done in 2011 won’t be about sex. Or is it your position we don’t need to find out how a television show couple can get into the White House without an invivtation? Is it your position we can’t investigate to find out why the Justice Department is going after Arizona for trying to enforce the law while the INS is bending over backwards to allow illegal aliens to stay in the country.

            Walter Hanson
            Minneapolis, MN

      • Ann_W

        Maybe around November you could write a diary about these and more strategic ideas the R’s could use.

        • Achance

          and in my archived diaries. This ain’t my first rodeo.

          • qixlqatl
          • Achance

            They have good hair, smile and wave a lot, and can stay on the message that somebody else writes for them. If you want to communicate with politicians you better be able to reduce ANYTHING to three bullet points and a soundbite.

            I’ve written about this before; we don’t have many operatives and many of the ones we have are not politically reliable. A hard core Democrat operative knows that if the Democrat loses his office or even loses the majority, he’ll never miss a payday. He’ll just go to a union or one of the non-profit fronts. Republicans don’t have much of that shadow government, so an operative that loses his officeholder or the majority goes back to hustling billable hours or selling real estate in Podunk. And, frankly, leaving DC, or any capital city, to go back to the hometown ain’t really in these people’s plans, so they have to keep themselves on good enough terms with the Democrats to have a chance at a job if their Republican loses. That goes a long way to explain why so few Republicans “play for keeps.” If they play for keeps and lose, they’re unemployed.

            Also, Republican officeholders and candidates are notoriously averse to controversy of any sort. If you do play for keeps, it makes a lot of noise and controversy and the Republicans either run screaming from you or cower in fear because of you, so you get a reputation for being somebody who makes them uncomfortable.

            I’ve carried a lot of water for Republicans here and caught a lot of spears aimied at them. My tenure as Alaska’s LR director under Murkowski was the only whole gubernatorial term since bargaining began in ’72 for which all the major unions were under contract and quiet for the whole four years. Yet, I will guarantee you that should I show up at the Parnell/Treadwell Campaign kickoff Grip ‘n Grin tonight, within the first five minutes some Republican officeholder would see me and say something like “Here comes trouble.”

          • qixlqatl

            From your description of pols, I’m qualified better than most. I still have all my hair and teeth, on a good day an ok+ in the looks dept, and I’m a champeen waver ;)

            $174K a year for congressmen? I promise I’ll quit reading and thinking…

  • caboose

    and gloom. We have not won the House and Senate yet. However, I fully agree with Dick Morris that we will take the House and the Senate with spares. We often critisize Republicans and Conservatives for turning winners into losers and then go right on to do just that. Lets get together and win this one in November, and then talk about how to restore our Country to it’s greatness. As for projecting jobs creation for forty years, I would point out the fact that 95% to 99% of any economic forcast, by Economists are not based on scientific fact, but on guess work at best. Time to get busy and vote our folks in. Contribute to your Primary winner.

    • abeldred

      as long as O is still Prez. Investigation into abuses of power by his admin, including the Czars, along with various agencies merit the time in my opinion. We know that they continue find ways around or trample over the law in many areas. If the GOP doesn’t take action to find out what they’ve been up to, will display weakness and a lack of willingness to root out the lawlessness. But they will need to pick their battles. A big part of the problem with Obama & the Progressives is the absolute corruption and abuse of power and it needs to be revealed.

      As for jobs, they need to move in the direction which will cut the public sector and open the door for the private sector. Will they? Can’t say, but I do think that anything they put on the table and get passed will be vetoed by the Prez if it doesn’t serve the Unions, the public sector or involves reducing taxes. I don’t believe Obama cares one whit about re-election so using the veto pen liberally will likely be his approach. Then he will blame the GOP for not getting anything done.

      The spending, ALL SPENDING, must stop, stop, stop! Budgets must be rolled back, expenditures from the smallest to the largest eliminated, no earmarks and so on. Will they have the stomach? Don’t know, but I have my doubts. Congressional reps are watching the anti-incumbent attitude of the people, and only having a two-yr term, they may be more inclined to heed what we say (hope, hope) for fear of coming up short in their next primary. The GOP must commit itself to not only stop any new spending, but not fund anything that pushes debt and deficits higher. This is especially true w/Obamacare, fin-reg etc. since there ain’t a snowball’s chance of repeal while he’s still in office.

      I would like to be cautiously optimistic about what we may see if the GOP prevails in Nov. but I am dubious until I see real evidence that they reveal that the CHANGE we want from them is that they change. We will see.

  • conservvoter

    Excellent post.

  • indylawyer

    I’m worried about the long term for basically the opposite reason Oz is. I think the Republicans will win big in 2010 and 2012, and enact sweeping cuts in spending and regulations – as they certainly should. But I’m worried that those cuts will make them roughly as popular in 2014 as the Democrats are now.

    My observation is that Americans, especially moderates, believe in limited government as an abstract principle, but also fervently believe in big government in a few specific areas that they really care about. They want to cut the fat, but their definition of “fat” does not include funding for their child’s public school, or their social security and medicaire benefits, or the subsidy program that flows to their industry or region, or to the PBS station their child watches. Etc., etc.

    Thinking back to the 1990′s it sure looked like the Gingrich revolution got burned pretty badly when it tried making some modest cuts to PBS funding and some medicaire reforms. They did manage to trim the budget substantially in 1995, and were rewarded with defeat in 1996 and 1998 (yes, Bob Dole had a big role in that). And what really turned people against us in 2006 was Iraq, followed by an economic collapse a month before the 2008 election.

    I really hope I am wrong about this. And the cuts need to be made whether they are popular or not. But I’m not at all convinced that the American people are going to be on board with a program of limited government and fiscal discipline once they realize the cuts will include their own favorite programs.

    • abeldred

      and how well the message is communicated. This is why the people who are now politically aware and activated (i.e. Tea party, etc) must continue to work as messengers on the ground and continue to educate their friends and neighbors. This election (nor 2012) is not a stopping point but merely a end of the beginning. I fear none of us will enjoy the luxury of leaving the politicians to their politics for a very long time into the future. A sure solution to some of the fiscal and policy problems the U.S. faces, is term limits. Until then, it will always be about getting re-elected.

    • Ausonius

      You are quite right: too many Americans want smaller government AND Social Security (as a retirement plan and NOT as a supplement) AND “aid to the poor” (defined how? As the right to have a color TV and Internet hook-up and free food?) AND this and that and everything else.

      The problem is how to sell the debate properly on smaller government, which cannot be done in 15 or 30-second soundbites, which is all too many voters depend on for their “information.”

      Despite that, the debate needs to raise basic philosophical questions: e.g. Should the Federal Government be worrying about the amount of mulch at the end of a playground slide ? (It is supposed to be 9 inches, by the way: no I did not make that up! OSHA has a booklet on playground construction: some bureaucrat was paid with our tax dollars to determine that kids’ little tushies need 9 inches of mulch at the end of a slide.) :)

      Seriously, such an example can be used for the ultimate message: the more the Federal and state governments do for you, the less freedom you have.

      Make your choice: Freedom, or the government nanny-state watching over you constantly like Big Brother.

      And that fits into a sound-bite!

    • aesthete

      But it should be realized that, in post-WWII times, there have only been 2 serious attempts to cut federal expenditures: the first was under Reagan, and the three problems confronting him were a well-organized Democrat majority in the House (and sometimes the Senate), a resentful and disorganized Republican caucus, and the foreign policy obligations he had committed himself to (and rightly so). A common theme of Reagan’s presidency was of him hammering out deals with Tip O’Neill (who represented the Dems, and could probably have pulled some GOP votes out from Reagan’s side on the spending issue) to fund defense spending and cut government, which would promptly be broken by O’Neill. Reagan, while a personally popular president, didn’t have the public (certainly not the “Reagan Democrats”) on his side when it came to spending: broadly, the 1980 election was a referendum on Carter and a vote in favor of more assertive foreign policy, not on spending.

      The second time, with the Contract With America, the major themes were fiscal responsibility, and the Contract was written in the context of HillaryCare’s demise. However, it was more a top-down hostile takeover by existing “Reagan Republicans” of the Republican party at the time, than a popular, grassroots movement. Therefore, although the public was broadly supportive of Republicans stopping Clinton’s agenda, they weren’t clear or attentive to the details. In addition, Newt’s personal problems with Clinton made the whole thing devolve into a personality contest before parts of the Contract were even seriously attempted, thereby relegating policy to the sidelines, and putting Clinton and his famous charm in the limelight.

      This time around, we have a grassroots movement which is broadly supportive of some serious government cuts, fighting against both parties and entrenched interests. Most of those in the Tea Party do not necessarily have strong party affiliation, and many of them are not fond of Pres Bush’s brand of big government conservatism (my read has been that they are respectful of Bush as a person, but not enthused by his record as President). Lastly, the GWOT, while important, is not comparable to the Cold War in scope, cost, or importance, and thus will have a lower priority on the bargaining table relative to the importance of the Cold War in the Reagan years.

      The general populace isn’t taking ObamaCare lying down, and they’re polling somewhat better on entitlement reform than they have been in a while. What this shows is that support for real cuts of government among the general populace is ambiguous, and that there is at least some sizable constituency whose main goal is to cut spending. OTOH, we know for sure that the popularity of status quo GOP is not ambiguous: it is immensely unpopular, among both independents and the base. So the choice for the Republican party is as follows: either take the risk and cut spending (a stated goal of Republican) and hope to God that it’s not a whirlwind you reap, or continue on your current trajectory, and ensure both your (perhaps permanent) sojourn in the wilderness and achieve no long-standing Republican goals all the while. If the Republican party changes trajectory and gets thrown out in the cold, at least we’ll know that it’s not for lack of trying. If it gets thrown out for doing the same fool thing, well, we all know the definition of insanity.

      • gbenton

        and I applaud the post, too.

        Pocketbook issues are key… and cutting taxes substantially will help consumers and business get back on track.

        What I’d love to see the GOP do is go beyond the Bush style tax cuts, or even Reagan, which simply tinker with the disgusting progressive income tax system. that is the lifeblood of the big government hacks in both parties.

        Ideally, I support the Fair Tax – totally eliminating and banning the tax on income, and that includes capital gains, death taxes, etc.

        Sold correctly, as in educating the public that it is not regressive and would fund legitimate government, I have hope that such a bold move and symbolic championing of the taxpayer could actually get through in this environment.

        Imagine the influx of investment, jobs, foreign capital – and relieving every tax paying American from April 15th.

        At a minimum, we have to push the Flax Tax, perhaps as as an interim step until the 16th Amendment can be dealt with… but now is the time for bold action and I think independents and the base would broadly support this reform.

        The death of the GOP would be to play it safe and appear no better than the Dems – and therefore, bold, popular action must be taken to show the party has changed from Bush era big government.

        I would LOVE to see Obama veto this… and provide a mandate for 2012 to get it done, and any Republican presidential nominee would be wise to pledge support of passage if elected.

        There is no more hated and feared agency in Government than the IRS – and if the GOP pulled that one bogeyman off our backs, I think conservatives could march from there to reduce the overall size of the Federal Government – and consumers could see the taxes and feel the impact of reducing the spending instead of it being hidden in withholding taxes.

        What say ya’ll?

  • harlan

    Dems play politics as if it were a blood sport.

    Republicans play politics as if it were badminton.

  • avgjo

    THAT’S the key.

    I do think some investigations are in order: it appears that laws were broken by Obama & Co. and the law needs to mean something in this country again. That said, the GOP had better look like it’s trying to repair the damage done the last two years. They need to make Obama the bad guy; he needs to be framed as the barrier to the progress America wants.

    As far as jobs going overseas…agreed. But we can’t fix that by patching it. It requires an overhaul of the entire business climate here. Less regulation. Fewer lawsuits. National right-to-work. Dropping or abolishing federal minimum wage. Lower taxes. This is a huge problem which requires a systematic solution, a solution that few right now seem to have the interest or the stomach for.

    I think we have an advantage this time around; many (not all, as that dummy Cantor illustrated) Republicans seem to be getting that politics as usual won’t be tolerated. Add to that the real conservatives we’re sending to shake things up and we should see the center of gravity of the GOP move right. To aid in this of course, we should watch them like hawks and rain political hell on them if they step out of line.

    The first big battle was Obamacare; we fought valiantly and lost. The next big battle is the Battle against the RINOs. If we win that one, we’re well on the way to winning the war.

    See you all at the front lines.

  • breakn70

    I, like everyone else, have been shocked by the audacity of the socialists who’ve been masquerading for years as Democrats. The past two years have been breathtaking (not in a good way) as each new day seemed to bring a multi billion dollar and sometimes trillion dollar big government power grab. Out of the closet they came and in a hurry. This naked power grab by the liberals/socialists never got me down, though. Rather, it made me angry. What got me down was feeling unrepresented by our side. Supposed conservatives turning soft and looking for accommodations with the other side at every turn. George Bush’s second term was a nightmare to me and although I voted for John McCain in the last election it was a repugnant choice for me. I feared that, if elected, a McCain presidency would be a Bush second term on steroids. Our “conservative” senator, Richard Burr who had been a model conservative Senator played hard for highway pork and played footsie with the concept of “comprehensive immigration reform”. My “conservative” congresswoman, Virginia Foxx in an early newsletter spoke proudly of her efforts to “reach across the aisle” and to bring federal monies to her North Carolina district. I wrote to her at the time (2005, I think) and told her that if when she left office there were no buildings in the district with her name on them she should consider herself a success and that her job was to defeat the liberals not reach across the aisle. Although both these folks have been good on the votes it’s hard to trust them when they take positions like that. And I don’t, trust them..

    Any way Oz, I’m with you on all that you wrote and a lot more. Our side worries me a lot more than their side. After our landslide victory in November we have to do everything we can to strengthen the Paul Ryans and Jim DeMints and weaken the Mitch McConnels and Eric Cantors. Oh yes, my personal preference for president in 2012; Jim DeMint.

    Thank you.

  • http://www.colinwitt.com/ cmw

    I think we need White House probes, not in the style we saw with Clinton, but to begin rolling back the influence these unelected “Czars” have in so many areas of bureaucracy.

    The White House has said these people work as an extension of the office of the president, and almost all of them are in their position without any congressional oversight or senatorial confirmation. We need answers about who is in charge of what, and we need legislation to prohibit the scope of what a bureaucrat can do absent an existing cabinet-level position or reporting relationship. Probes and subpoenas may be the only way to get at this information, when the White House clams up.

    And yes, I do believe Tea Partiers and other concerned conservatives will agree that this is important.

    But great article, add me down as a “me too.”

  • Ann_W

    Or at the end of the game listing at the all the ways the reffing was unfair.

  • Ann_W

    Any of mine that have thought about the issues enough to articulate the problem like your friends are already firmly voting Republican at least as the lesser of two evils. But there is a huge block of people that, when you talk to them, tend to have Republican leanings but they just kind of get a feel for things “not being right” and just follow their feelings and somewhat the narrative that the media presents. (Yes, it’s usually the evil Republicans and evil business types ganging up.) There are a lot of people that are just not interested in informing themselves about politics.

  • ywhyvon1
  • GCBWI

    The cyclical nature of American electoral politics should teach all of us that neither major party will ever attain the ascendency on a permanent basis.

    There were, no doubt, some giddy souls saying in 1994 that now that the Republicans had wrested control of Congress from the Democrats, the GOP could expect to remain in control for awhile. That lasted awhile, and while it lasted the GOP frequently was the majority party by only a slim margin.

    Then came 2006 and 2008…and there were giddy souls on the left celebrating the impending doom of conservatism and the Republican party.

    The drift which cost the GOP control of Congress a few years ago, and events of the last two years or so should serve to teach us that we can’t limit ourselves to working hard to elect like-minded candidates. Once those candidates get elected, we have to hold them accountable for their actions.

    And at this point, all the predictions about the GOP taking control of the House and possibly the Senate in Novemember notwithstanding, we can’t even get so complacent as to slack off…see Erick E’s reminder.

  • ywhyvon1

    The question, and the ork before us, is how do we get our neighbors/friends/family engaged?

  • mjdzfun

    Go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrATS4mthX4

    Listen, read and forward everything on to friends/family. Have conversations, get engaged, get involved. Call your local RNC office and just do it.

    When I start getting complacent, I listen to this again and then I get mad and fired up and just do it.

    Glad to have you on board!

  • Ann_W
  • http://www.thehayride.com MacAoidh

    …when we can be reasonably assured we can prove wrongdoing.

    The American people need to see how thoroughly corrupt and dishonest the Democrats are. Both in the White House and also in Congress. They need to put a target on Pelosi’s back and make her the Emmanuel Goldstein of American politics.

    And if this poisons the American people’s opinion of Washington, that’s OK. Because power needs to be devolved to the states – which will be overwhelmingly run by Republicans after November – anyway. And by defunding federal programs and block-granting money (and thus power) to the states.

    More: http://thehayride.com/2010/08/five-ways-a-gop-house-majority-can-govern-in-spite-of-obama/

  • ywhyvon1

    also www.40seats.com is a good place to find out houw you can help out in some small way.

    It’s like Politcal activism for Dummies. If your zip code doesn’t bring back results-you can research the data yourself (hint hint) and send that info onto the creators of this site. Apparently they are short haned.

    Too Easy!

  • avgjo

    that explains why or why not a party can get permanent ascendancy. The answer lies in what causes the cycles.

    The thing is that there are certain basic things Americans want from their employees (read: elected officials). But neither party gives those things, at least not completely. And lately, neither side has even come close to delivering. The frustration that results is manifested in the swinging back and forth of power between parties. They both promise the same things, but the difference is in how they propose to effect these things. Strong defense. A stable and strong economic environment. More choice for Americans on any number of issues.

    The problem with the Dems is that the way they implement their programs angers and alienates most Americans and that’s because they don’t work.

    The problem with the Republicans is that they don’t keep their promises. Often, their implementation of what they promise, when they actually do it, is often pleasing to most Americans. But they all too often don’t keep their promises. And lately (as in 2000-on) they have been messing up even the implementation of their promises.

    The democrats dominated American politics for years and years. IF conservatives will run the show, and keep their promises, they can enjoy the same long term dominance. And that’s a war won. It’s not to say there won’t be other wars. But if we continue to try to pander to this senstivity or that special interest, if we try to be the ‘big tent’ party, we will see the high-frequency cyclical politics we’re unfortunately getting used to. And this war will drag out.

  • Ann_W